Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty

by Nancy L. Etcoff

A provocative and thoroughly researched inquiry into what we find beautiful and why, skewering the myth that the pursuit of beauty is a learned behavior. 

In  Survival of the Prettiest , Nancy Etcoff, a faculty member at Harvard Medical School and a practicing psychologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, argues that beauty is neither a cultural construction, an invention of the fashion industry, nor a backlash against feminism—it’s in our biology. 

Beauty, she explains, is an essential and ineradicable part of human nature that is revered and ferociously pursued in nearly every civilization—and for good reason. Those features to which we are most attracted are often signals of fertility and fecundity. When seen in the context of a Darwinian struggle for survival, our sometimes extreme attempts to attain beauty—both to become beautiful ourselves and to acquire an attractive partner—suddenly become much more understandable. Moreover, if we understand how the desire for beauty is innate, then we can begin to work in our own interests, and not just the interests of our genetic tendencies.

Genres: Nonfiction, Science, Psychology, Feminism, Sociology, Evolution, History

336 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1999

About the author

Nancy Etcoff serves as Practicing Psychologist at the Massachusetts General Hospital Department of Psychiatry. At the Massachusetts General Hospital, Ms. Etcoff served as Director of the Program in Aesthetics and Well Being. She has conducted research on the perception of beauty, emotion, well-being and the brain for more than 20 years, culminating in numerous awards and research papers in professional journals including Nature, Cognition and Neuron. She also maintains a private practice in clinical psychology, and serves as a consultant to corporations and organizations on the subjects of both well-being and beauty. She serves as a Member of Advisory Board of The First Thirty Days Inc. She serves as Faculty Member of the Harvard Medical School and the Harvard University Mind/Brain/Behavior Initiative where she teaches a seminar on "The Science of Happiness." Ms. Etcoff's critically acclaimed popular science book, Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty is the subject of a one-hour Discovery Channel program.

Reviews

[C C · Rating 3 out of 5]

Only read this book if you are attractive like me, or someone who reminds you of me. If you are not as attractive as me, this book will be for you like the 10th circle of Dante's Inferno. You will suddenly be aware of and feel cursed by your subpar DNA. You will suddenly feel like extra cargo on the ocean liner that is the human race. On the other hand, you might appreciate finally solving the mystery of why nobody liked you very much as a child, nobody picked you for a dance partner, or dropped a valentine in those paper bags attached to the side of your desk. You will no longer have to guess why nobody wanted you to come to fun parties on the weekend because the answer will now be painfully clear: you weren't pretty enough. Maybe history hitherto has not been a conflict between classes, but between the attractive (again, me) and the plain (not me).

In conclusion, stay away from sharp objects.

[Sarah · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this immediately after reading The Beauty Myth because it was billed as a rebuttal. The idea is that "beauty" is not a social construct after all, but an evolutionary fact.

Since it was billed as a rebuttal, I feel compelled to rate them against each other. Survival is definitely easier to get through. It is better written. It is full of fun facts and studies. I read both books on vacation and Survival definitely seemed more appropriate for the beach!

But I couldn't help but feel that it didn't have a cohesive argument; it didn't have something important to say like The Beauty Myth did. I think the main mistake was inviting the comparison by referencing The Beauty Myth. As a stand-alone book about why we find certain characteristics attractive, it was very interesting and I'm glad I read it.

But I wasn't convinced that evolution is all that is going on.

And strangely, even though it was a lighter read, it was actually more depressing. If it's evolution, we're working against "billions" of years of conditioning- conditioning that makes sense! We like thick blond hair and small waists because they indicate youth, health, and strong reproductive capability. The logical conclusion is that you are not only ugly... you are unhealthy and infertile. And getting old. Yikes. That comes dangerously close to reaffirming the old idea that beauty indicates goodness. I don't think we want to go back down that path, do we?

[Letitia · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ultimately an unsatisfactory read, though the loads of research and information did prove quite educational, and I found myself much more informed about the evolution of the human body, cultural biases about looks, etc. The author attempts to explain why "pretty" is "pretty," but, in my opinion, with little success. Her ultimate conclusions leave us to believe that by these supposedly evolutionary superior standards, large breasted caucasian women are the most beautiful human beings alive, scientificall proven. The author then attempts a song and dance to explain away the racist implications of this, but unconvincingly so, since she has just devoted pages of scientific research to proving that paler women are prettier women. Would definitely be a great discussion book. Highly recommended for predominately female book clubs.

[Kaethe]

Argues for an evolutionary basis for the notion of "beauty" but then tries to argue than the current cultural ideal is somehow natural. Yeah, throughout humanity, blonde, young, skinny-waisted, big-boobed Barbie looks have been the epitome of health and fecundity? Give me a break.

The idea that evolution has encouraged us to seek out signals of health in partners? Sure. The idea that fair skin = health? Not buying it.

[Stabitha · Rating 1 out of 5]

I put this book down not because it was bad, but because it was incredibly depressing. It felt abusive. The author details the many, many ways in which women become increasingly less attractive after the age of about 16, when we are at our peak of desirability according to Etcoff. I don't necessarily disagree with her; I just didn't feel like reading a book that was basically telling me how disgusting I am. I get enough of that from advertising, magazines, movies, and television.

[Anne · Rating 4 out of 5]

Before you laugh and surmise to yourself, "that's kind of a silly book to read," it is written by a Harvard neuroscientist, Dr. Nancy Etcoff. In this book, she explains the very processes of attraction, why we are attracted to certain people, certain traits, certain characteristics, and how we are biologically hardwired to have the exact desires that we do. If you enjoy the scientific processes behind human motivations. I personally cannot stand books that purport to help you "find yourself" by throwing a bunch of feel-good, emotional drivel at you. This is none of that, this is quite a good scientific read, in fact.

[OKSANA ATAMANIUK · Rating 5 out of 5]

«Виживання найгарніших. Наука краси»
Ненсі Еткофф, 2019
Видавництво @YakabooPublishing
⠀
“Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty”
Nancy Etcoff, 1999
⠀
Наше захоплення красою, це вплив індустрії краси, чи все ж таки генетика та еволюція?
⠀
Красивим бути легше? Вигідніше?
⠀
Чи красиві люди щасливіші? Успішніші?
⠀
Що важить більше, душа чи тіло?
⠀
Чи однаково ставляться до краси люди різних культур і національностей? Чи є спільні критерії «краси»?
⠀
Книжка підіймає багато цікавих питань. Авторка дає інформацію про наукові дослідження по темі. Мені було цікаво.
⠀
Рекомендую 👌🏻
⠀
Цитата:
⠀
«Зрештою, ми переглянемо дослідження сприйняття в дітей і побачимо, що навіть у віці трьох місяців вони довше дивляться на привабливі обличчя, ніж на непривабливі. Діти, як видається, приходять у світ зі здатністю розрізняти та віддавати перевагу красивому.»
⠀
Про книжку:
⠀
«Чим насправді є людська одержимість красою? Чому нас непереборно ваблять певні наборів фізичних рис та ознак? Що змушує людей зазирати у дзеркало, вибілювати шкіру чи засмагати, цікавитись модними трендами? Доктор психології, дослідниця і викладачка Гарвардської школи медицини, практикуюча психологиня Ненсі Еткофф, стверджує, що це не є виявами зіпсутості, матеріалізму, бездуховності, марнославства чи поверхневості. Спираючись на десятки наукових праць та результати сотень авторитетних досліджень на перетині соціальної психології, соціометрії, біології та фізіології, авторка пояснює чіткі взаємозв’язки між тим, що люди універсально вважають красивим, та еволюційними потребами нашого виду.
Простежуючи відмінності сприйняття вроди, моди та сексуальності в різних країнах, культурах, епохах, суспільних прошарках, вона відзначає, як на вподобання впливають вік, стать, орієнтація і суспільні норми і пояснює причини цих відмінностей. Ненсі Еткофф розглядає практично кожен елемент людської зовнішності та детально пояснює, що ми незмінно намагаємося розгледіти та підкреслити в собі самих, і що бачать наші потенційні сексуальні партнери, суспільство та навіть роботодавці.»
⠀
#примхливачитака

[Петър Стойков · Rating 4 out of 5]

Еволюцията, както знаем, се получава от оцеляването най-приспособените. Първото нещо, което трябва да запомним за това определение е, че "най-приспособени" не означава задължително "най-бързи, най-силни и най-умни".

"Най-приспособени" означава просто това - тези, които най-добре успяват да се възползват от наличните условия, имат най-много оцелели до размножаване деца. Плъховете не са по-силни и бързи от лъвовете, но имат предимства в екологичните ниши, в които живеят и съответно се размножават и живеят успешно. Примерно.

Второто нещо, което трябва да запомним за еволюцията чрез оцеляване на най-приспособените е, че основата на еволюцията е размножаването и често "най-приспособен" означава "най-приспособен за размножаване" и то не във връзка с това колко деца можеш да имаш и как ги храниш, а... дали някой иска да се размножава с тебе.

Така че "сексуалната селекция" - какъв тип партньори организмите избират за размножаване, е един от водещите фактори в еволюцията. В случая с пауните това са партньорите с най-големи и цветни опашки, а в случая с хората нещата стават "малко" по-сложни ;)

Survival of the Prettiest е може да се каже класическа книга в еволюционната биология и дори психология, която ви дава основите на теорията за сексуалната селекция на организмите и задълбава в човешката такава.

[Melissa A. Fabello · Rating 5 out of 5]

By far, if I have to recommend any book on beauty standards and body image, to get a relatively well-rounded introductory (but at the same time, totally in-depth) perspective, it would be this one. When I finally finished it, I tweeted the author to say, "It was perfect." Trust me, I don't do that often – and I hardly ever give anything five stars. Buy this book. Buy this book. BUY THIS BOOK.

"Survival of the Prettiest" is everything that "The Beauty Myth" wanted to be, but wasn't, except from the opposite point-of-view. Let me explain: My biggest fear with this book was that it was going to take a purely biopsycho standpoint and completely bash the sociocultural implications of beauty. It was, after all, written in response to "The Beauty Myth." And while I have a lot (a LOT) of issues with "The Beauty Myth," I stand by its most core pretense: that society takes beauty to an extreme that is incredibly damaging to women. But as an academic in sexuality studies, I know that the sociocultural aspect of this conversation isn't the ONLY side, and then pretending that it is (which is what basically ALL of mainstream body positivity does) isn't actually helpful. And that's part of why I hate "The Beauty Myth" – because it's entirely one-sided with really faulty science to attempt to back up unfounded claims. I thought "Survival of the Prettiest" would be similar. It's why I slept on this book for so long. But instead, it does all of the things I wish that "The Beauty Myth" did (make fair claims, unpack the science that backs it up, look at the whole picture, name the limitations). So I finally took the plunge. And it was amazing.

The book lays out, very clearly, the ways in which our biological imperative toward mate attraction (and therefore, symbols of health, wealth, and beauty) can't be separated out from cultural influences. It gives ample examples of how the three major schools of thought (biology, psychology, and sociology) converge to create very specific norms. But its main argument is that when we ONLY take a lens to critique culture, we actually miss out on a lot – and we can't possibly come to understand (or even battle) beauty standards if we don't look at it from a bird's eye view. It was not only informative, but also entertaining to read. Every time I sat down to read it, I flew through a chunk.

Unfortunately, because the book takes a chiefly biomedical perspective, the conversation is very hetero- and ciscentric, and also relies on anti-fat stigma. But going into a book on evolutionary psychology, I figured that would happen, so I was prepared for it. If that might be triggering for you, you might want to avoid this.

Otherwise, this book hits many, many nails on the head, and I wish more folks would take this holistic approach to this conversation.

[Sara · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was interesting, but there were quite a lot of major points that I disagreed with. Being a psychology major, I am not one to discount the role that society plays in aesthetic trends, but since this book was largely biology-based, there were many cases in which I could not entirely agree with what I was reading. Do I agree that what we find beautiful is an evolutionary development? Certainly. Do I agree that only white, blonde haired, blue eyed, tiny waisted, big boobed, yet vaguely infantile women are seen as healthy, fertile, and beautiful by men? Not on your life.

There were also many cases of contradictory evidence. For example, "men like women with small waists because they're more likely to have successful pregnancies" contradicting with the later point that "men like women with a little extra fat because they're more likely to have successful pregnancies." This also comes into play with my biggest area of contention, which was the section on eating disorders. I have learned a lot about eating disorders in my field, and this book was just all over the place with it's "facts". On one page it said that eating disorders are not influenced by the unnatural standards shown to us by the media, but a page later it says that they are influenced by standards set by our society's wealthy (and more ridiculously, that it may function as a deliberate postponing of reproduction... what?!). Want to guess who's in charge of what we see in the media? The wealthy, perhaps? Bingo.

I also think it's interesting that one of the reviewers of the book had this very haughty comment to give about the book debunking the myth of society's interest in female beauty being a backlash to feminism. I don't remember anyone ever saying that interest in beauty was a backlash, since people have obviously always been drawn to beauty. Rather, it is the over-sexualization and entirely un-achievable standards we're being given that are the backlash. The issue is not that we're being told what is beautiful, because that's always been a thing, but the fact that rich old white men who control what we see are telling us that the only way to be beautiful, is to be inhumanly so.

Overall, I wasn't in a place to agree with the main message of the book which was that while some guy is likely to settle down with you for the sake of passing on his own genes, he'll never be truly happy with you unless you're of model-like body proportions. This book gives too much support to the stereotypes of men only caring about women if they can fuck them (and in relation to how successful their fucking will be), and women only caring about a man who has money. It's pretty much archaic, and while I found it an interesting read, I wouldn't hold anything within the pages up as facts.

[Mag · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nobody is immune to beauty, and it seems that what is beautiful is wired in our brains. It’s all in the proportions and angles between the parts of the face and then different parts of the body, for both women and men. It seems to be pretty much universal. There are no cultural discrepancies in what we like and define as beautiful. All around the globe we seem to pick out the same photographs as more pleasing than others. The only curious difference may be the nose. It is mentioned that Polynesians, for example, would pick a short and flat nose over a long and thin Caucasian nose, and call the white men ‘ant eaters’ behind their backs.

It all seems to be related to sexual selection, and good proportions and healthy skin, beautiful lustrous hair and symmetrical bodies advertise health and promise good reproductive future. As far as sexual display is concerned, we join other animals in liking the bigger and the showier- bigger peacock tails, big and symmetrical antlers, and so on. It can be equated to our fondness of broader shoulders and prominent pectorals in a male, and relatively big and well proportioned hips, waists and breasts in a female.

We similarly respond to what we perceive as beautiful in babies: nice skin, big foreheads, big eyes and big heads in relation to the rest of the body. Also to symmetry in the body, and harmony in music. Symmetry is especially interesting, as not only do we perceive it as pleasing, we also mate more eagerly with mates with symmetrical bodies, to the extent that female bodies actually become more symmetrical during ovulation.

Now it only leaves the question why we respond to beautiful landscapes, or a piece of music or a poem, and perhaps why we invented music and literature in the first place.
The book is well written and well researched, and it makes a lot of good points. There is also a good chapter distinguishing fashion from beauty.

[Imani · Rating 2 out of 5]

Overall, there were interesting and quite a few insightful studies that the author includes in her book that made me ponder just how predictable most of humanity can be.

The basic "being pretty" includes having an hourglass figure for women...and it's all for (you guessed it) purpose of just wanting to be able to find a mate to reproduce. This whole plucking and primping thing has always been about that.

It's unfortunately been proven through studies that beautiful people tend to get through life easier in that they're more likely to be hired and have a more experienced dating life. Though they are not necessarily happier.

What I didn't like about this book is that it made me feel like humans are more shallow than what I thought. Also I was personally offended when the author said women make themselves pretty for the MAIN purpose of attracting a man. <_<

Why not just to feel good about yourself? To boost your own confidence when you look in the mirror? Not for the purpose of pleasing others (though that can be flattering...or creepy). One chapter said girls flip and twirl their hair when they show interest in men...o_o I mean...I flip my hair....but I've never consciously done that for a guy's attention...ever. o_o

I don't think the author necessarily won any argument or if there even WAS one, I just know it was slightly informative but on the negative/depressing side. She considers that beauty ends once you reach your thirties...when the prime of your life is over. It's like...that's kind of subjective. :/ Idk...I mean I'm not thirty yet...I have some years to go...but even in my young age this isn't a "feel-good" book for anyone, any age, that's for sure.

[Ivan · Rating 5 out of 5]

неймовірно

[Ryan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Shrug. From a non-fiction book, I need one of two things: excellent scholarship or excellent writing. I felt like this book was mediocre on both accounts - not terrible, but not outstanding either. I should say that, on that account, out of boredom I didn't actually finish the book, but my general ideological beefs with it concerned a Euro/Caucasian-centric viewpoint, with a seeming lack of terrible interest in African, or even African-American, standards of beauty. But, since I didn't read the last 100+ pages, I could be wrong.

I will say I appreciate the central argument that there is a biological/evolutionary factor in the way we dictate what is generally attractive in people, but the reason I stopped reading the book was that eventually I kept asking myself, "so?" I mean, fine, for the sake of argument, let's take as given the stance that older men will always want younger women due to a fundamental biological order. Does that mean socially we should condone that? Doesn't that create an imbalance or discord between the sexes, not to mention the generations? And might that not feed into (or, dare I say, be at least partially symptomatic? No, I daren't!) a power structure that places men in the dominant role and women as subservient? Shouldn't we consider the sociological ramifications of our biological urges instead of using evolution and science as a justification for unequal hegemony?

I dunno. Maybe one day we'll get that. If anybody knows of a book out there that explores the cross-section between biology and sociology, I'd love to read it. I suppose, in the meantime, I'll have to settle for the either/or dichotomy of nature vs. nurture.

[Cherniakhivska · Rating 4 out of 5]

Мені ця книжка була дуже цікавою. Озвучила деякі речі, які я теж могла помічати чи здогадуватись, але тут вони прописані прямо і підтверджені дослідженнями й експериментами.
Окремі тези не наводитиму, бо все цікаве не охоплю, а вибіркові акценти не передають мого враження.
Якщо будете читати, то: мені було дуже цікаво про хвіст павича як вказівку на ресурс, вплив зросту на кар'єру, вплив одягу на сприйняття привабливості, потребу вищого класу підкреслювати достаток, корелювання повноти з достатком і багато іншого.
Чимало міркувала про власний "хвіст павича" (довгі сукні, довге волосся, аксесуари), на який в декреті в мене не стало ресурсу (тоді перейшла на джинси з футболками й коротку стрижку), тепер міркую, який "хвіст" хочу мати.

[Олена Павлова · Rating 5 out of 5]

Антропологія краси. Цією темою цікавилася давно, а тут виявилося багато того, що ще не знаю. Дуже круто, дуже ґрунтовно, без води. От тільки шкода, що так пізно в нас його переклали — у світі цей бестселлер вийшов на 20 років раніше. Але краще пізно, ніж ніколи.

[Miss Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's rare that I read non-fiction, I'm generally more into escaping than educating myself. However, I did enjoy this book. I found it very readable for non-fiction. Etcoff takes the stance that beauty is not necessarily in the eye of the beholder, that there are certain commonalities in what is considered to be beautiful across all cultures, and that we are hardwired to enjoy looking at beautiful things. She concludes, however, by pointing out that we don't have to heed our instincts, we can gaze at beauty without letting it influence our judgments, and we do that by being aware of what beauty is and isn't.

I think the book is often categorized as psychology, but in my opinion, there's a lot of biology and sociology and history in there as well. It reflects a thorough examination of beauty from many angles, and if you want learn more about the nature of attraction, it's definitely worth checking out.

[Oksana Cooper · Rating 4 out of 5]

Що означає бути красивим у сучасному світі? Фарбувати волосся у світлий колір, щотижня відвідувати спортзал, слідкувати за останніми модними тенденціями і проводити години в кабінеті косметолога чи пластичного хірурга… Насправді на це неоднозначне питання немає і однозначної відповіді.

«Люди витрачають мільярди доларів на косметичну та пластичну хірургію з однієї причини: ці сфери обслуговують світ, у якому добрий вигляд має цінність для виживання», – зазначає американська психологиня, доктор філософії та викладачка Гарвардської ш��оли медицини Ненсі Еткофф у своїй книжці. Вона досліджує феномен краси у найдрібніших деталях та стверджує, що хоча й підходи до краси чоловіків та жінок в різні часи змінювалися, зазвичай «краса має бути справою індивідуального смаку та диктату культури».

«Універсальні вподобання залишаються незмінними — чистота шкіри, блискуче волосся, повні губи, тощо — але конкретне втілення цих рис відрізняється залежно від того, хто перебуватиме на вершині ієрархії», — наголошує психологиня. Колись модним було біляве/чорняве волосся і світла шкіра, зараз – різноманіття стилів та буквально вміння виділятися із натовпу. З практичної точки зору все досить просто: ми, люди, прагнемо бути не тільки продуктом природи, а й продуктом мистецтва.

«Врода дає переваги в усіх сферах життя», нагадує авторка, і стосується це як жінок, так і чоловіків, просто з різними особливостями. Краса теж важлива для чоловічої половини населення Землі, але їх, в основному, прискіпливіше оцінюють за заробітком та статусом, тоді як жінок — за їхньою зовнішністю. При цьому в обох статей є свої больові точки. Якщо жир — біль жінок, то м'язи — біль чоловіків, каже психологиня, та нагадує, що чоловіки використовують бороди та вуса так само, як жінки — макіяж, щоб замаскувати непривабливі риси й ознаки старіння.
Чи знали ви, що макіяж був розвиненим мистецтвом уже за часів Давнього Єгипту, а взуття на платформі початково використовували обидві статі? Серйозне дослідження феномену краси під обкладинкою цієї книжки розкриє цікаві деталі про розвиток індустрії моди, макіяжу, татуювань, надмірного захоплення дієтами та всі історичні і психологічні фактори, які за ними ховаються. До речі, для феміністок у авторки є важлива теза про те, що їм «ліпше намагатися зміцнювати всі джерела жіночої сили, ніж одне з них — красу — очорнювати». А ви як вважаєте?

P.S. Як підказали мені згодом Facebook-друзі, книжка Еткофф була своєрідною відповіддю на тези іншої дослідниці-феміністки з більш радикальними поглядами Наомі Вульф. Бо й справді питання до прав та можливостей, а не кількості покупок глянцевих журналів, кількості крему на обличчі тощо.

[Fadi · Rating 4 out of 5]

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[VEL – The Contemporary Heretic · Rating 3 out of 5]

Beauty is, we are told, ‘in the eye of the beholder’.

But the ‘eye of the beholder’, and the brain behind it, has been shaped by natural selection to find certain traits beautiful—and, if beauty is in the ‘eye of the beholder’, then sexiness is located in a different part of the male anatomy, but equally a product of evolution.

Youthfulness
A common complaint regarding books about the evolutionary psychology of human sexuality is that they are full of untested speculation or ‘just so stories’. This is not a criticism that could be levelled at Nancy Ettcoff’s ‘Survival of the Prettiest’.

It is full of data from published studies on the correlates of physical attractiveness.

If I have a criticism, it is that it is somewhat deficient on theory.

Thus, one recurrent theme of the book is that female beauty is associated with indicators of youth.

“Physical beauty is like athletic skill: it peaks young. Extreme beauty is rare and almost always found, if at all, in people before they reach the age of thirty-five” (p63).

Yet Etcoff addresses only briefly the question of why males are attracted to young-looking women.

Partly this is because female fertility declines rapidly with age, before ceasing at menopause.

As for the menopause itself, this, she speculates, evolved because human infants enjoy an extended period of dependence on their mother. Therefore, after a certain age, it pays women to focus on caring for existing offspring, and grandchildren, rather than bearing new offspring whom they will not be around to care for (p73). This is known as the grandmother hypothesis.

Yet the decline in female fertility with age is perhaps insufficient to explain the male preference for youthfulness.

Women’s fertility peaks in their early to mid-twenties, since teenage girls, although easily becoming pregnant, also have high rates of birth complications. Yet men’s sexual interest seems peaks in respect of women even younger, namely in their late-teens (Kenrick & Keefe 1992).

Kenrick and Keefe, following a suggestion of Symons, propose that this is because girls at this age, while less fertile, have higher reproductive value, a term drawn from ecology which refers to an individual’s expected future reproductive output given their age (Kenrick & Keefe 1992).

On this view, it is to men's advantage to form long-term pair-bonds with females of maximal reproductive value (i.e. mid to late teens), so that, by so doing, they can monopolize the entirety of her reproductive output over the coming years.

Yet the closest Etcoff gets to discussing this is a single sentence where she writes:

“Men often prefer the physical signs of a woman below peak fertility (under age twenty). Its like signing a contract a year before you want to start the job” (p72).

Yet the theme of youth as a correlate of beauty is a major theme of her book.

Thus, Etcoff reports that, in a survey of traditional cultures:

“The highest frequency of brides was in the twelve to fifteen years of age category… Girls at this age are preternaturally beautiful” (p57).

Yet this seems rather younger than most men’s, even most boys, ideal mate. Thus, Kenrick and Keefe inferred from their data that around eighteen was the ideal age of sexual partner for most men.

Of course, in primitive cultures, women may lose their looks faster, due to worse health and nutrition, lack of beauty treatments and because they usually undergo repeated childbirth.

However, obesity is more common in the West, decreases attractiveness and increases with age.

Also, girls in the west now reach puberty rather earlier than in primitive cultures, probably due to improved nutrition and health. This suggests that females develop secondary sexual characteristics and hence become attractive to males somewhat earlier than in premodern societies.

Perhaps Etcoff is right that girls “in the twelve to fifteen years of age category… are… beautiful”. But, if beauty peaks very early, I suspect sexiness peaks a bit later, being dependent on secondary sexual characteristics that develop in late-puberty (e.g. breasts, hips, buttocks).

Perhaps this distinction between ‘beauty’ and ‘sexiness’ can be made sense of in terms of a distinction between what David Buss calls short-term and long-term mating strategies.

Thus, if fertility peaks in the mid-twenties, then, in respect of short-term mating (i.e. causal sex, one-night stands) men should presumably prefer partners of this age, slightly older than their preferences in respect of long-term partners—i.e. of maximal fertility rather than maximum reproductive value.

As far as I am aware, however, no study has confirmed this—perhaps because, since commitment-free short-term sex is a win-win situation for men, and most men’s opportunities in this arena are few and far between, there has been little selection acting on men to discriminate at all in respect of short-term partners.

Sex Differences in Sexiness?
Another theme of ‘Survival of the Prettiest’ is that the payoffs for good-looks are greater for women than men.

Beauty is most advantageous in a mating context, but women convert this advantage into an economic one through marriage:

“The best-looking girls in high school are more than ten times as likely to get married as the least good-looking. Better looking girls tend to ‘marry up,’ that is, marry men with more education and income then they have” (p65).

Yet there is no such advantage accruing to better-looking male students.

The only disadvantage to being pretty, Etcoff reports, is in respect of same-sex friendships:

“Good looking women in particular encounter trouble with other women. They are less liked by other women, even other good-looking women” (p50).

She does not explain why this is so.

One possibility is that women envy and resent beautiful women and see them as threat to their own relationships or ability to attract a mate.

An alternative explanation is that beautiful women simply do have less likeable personalities. Perhaps, having grown used to being receiving preferential treatment and being fawned over, beautiful women become entitled and spoilt.

But why are the payoffs for good looks greater for women than for men?

Etcoff does not address this, but, from a Darwinian perspective, it represents a paradox.

Among other species, it is males for whom beauty affords a greater payoff in terms of the ultimate currency of natural selection—reproductive success.

Thus, many male birds evolved beautiful plumages, while females remain quite drab (e.g. peafowl).

The ultimate explanation is Bateman’s principle.

Females must make a greater minimal investment in offspring in order to reproduce. Thus, among humans, females must commit to nine months pregnancy, plus breastfeeding, whereas a male must contribute, at minimum, only a single ejaculate.

Females therefore represent the limiting factor in mammalian reproduction for access to whom males compete.

One way in which they compete is by display. Hence the elaborate tail of the peacock.

Yet, among humans, it is females who seem more concerned with using their beauty to attract mates.

Of course, women use makeup and clothing rather than growing a long tail. But behavior is no less subject to selection than morphology, so the paradox remains.

Indeed, the most promising example of a morphological trait in humans that may have evolved primarily for attracting members of the opposite sex is, again, a female trait—breasts.

As Etcoff writes:

“Female breasts are like no others in the mammalian world. Humans are the only mammals who develop rounded breasts at puberty and keep them whether or not they are producing milk… In humans, breast size is not related to the amount or quality of milk that the breast produces” (p187).

Instead, human breasts are, save during pregnancy and lactation, composed predominantly of, not milk, but fat.

It is possible that breasts evolved, like camel humps, as fat reserves, and are restricted to women due to the caloric demands of pregnancy and lactation. However, since men tend to find pert breasts attractive, sexual selection is also implicated.

This is in stark contrast to the situation among other mammals, who develop breasts only during pregnancy.

“Breasts are not sex symbols to other mammals, anything but, since they indicate a pregnant or lactating and infertile female. To chimps, gorillas and orangutans, breasts are sexual turn-offs” (p187).

How breasts went from being indicators of infertility to sexual ornaments has been termed the ‘breast paradox’.

Why then does sexual selection seem to have acted more strongly on women than men?

Dawkins, in The Selfish Gene (reviewed here), alluding to this anomaly, laments:

“What has happened in modern western man? Has the male really become the sought-after sex, the one that is in demand, the sex that can afford to be choosy? If so, why?” (The Selfish Gene: p165).

Yet this is surely not the case with regard to casual sex. Here, it is very much men who ardently pursue and women who are sought after.

Patterns of everything from prostitution to porn consumption confirm this—see The Evolution of Human Sexuality (reviewed here).

Thus, in one study at a University campus, 72% of male students agreed to go to bed with a female stranger who propositioned them to this effect, yet not a single one of the 96 females approached agreed to the same request from a male stranger (Clark and Hatfield 1989).

(What percentage of the students sued the university for sexual harassment was not revealed.)

Yet humans are unusual among mammals in also forming long-term pair-bonds where male parental investment is the norm. Here, men have an incentive to be as selective as women in their choice of partner.

In particular, in Western societies practising what Alexander called ‘socially-imposed monogamy’ (i.e. where there exist large differentials in male resource holdings, but polygynous marriage is unlawful) competition among women for exclusive rights to resource-abundant alpha males may be intense (Gaulin and Boser 1990).

This, then, may explain the unusual intensity of sexual selection among human females.

Why, though, is there not evidence of similar selection operating among males?

Perhaps the answer is that, since, in most cultures, arranged marriages are the norm, female choice actually played little role in human evolution.

Instead, male mating success may have depended less upon what Darwin called ‘intersexual selection’ and more upon intrasexual selection—i.e. less upon female choice and more upon male fighting.

Male Attractiveness and Fighting Ability
Paradoxically, this is reflected even in the traits that women find attractive.

Thus, although Etcoff’s book is titled ‘The Evolution of Prettiness’, and ‘prettiness’ is usually a term applied to women, and, when applied to men, is (perhaps tellingly) rarely a complement, Etcoff does discuss male attractiveness.

Yet what is notable about the factors that Etcoff describes as attractive among men is that they all seem related to fighting ability.

This is obviously true of height (p172-176) and muscularity (p176-80), which confer obvious advantages in combat

In contrast, traits like the peacock’s tail are often a positive handicap to their owner. Indeed, one influential theory of sexual selection contends that it is precisely because they represent a handicap that they have evolved as a sexually-selected fitness indicator, because only a genetically superior male is capable of bearing such a handicap.

Yet, if men’s bodies have evolved more for fighting than attracting mates, the same is perhaps less obviously true of our faces.

Puts proposes:

“Even facial structure may be designed for fighting: heavy brow ridges protect eyes from blows, and robust mandibles lessen the risk of catastrophic jaw fractures” (Puts 2010: p168).

Indeed, beards have actually been found “to decrease attractiveness to women, yet have strong positive effects on men’s appearance of dominance” (Puts 2010: p166).

“Men’s traits look designed to make men appear threatening, or enable them to inflict real harm. Men’s beards and deep voices seem designed specifically to increase apparent size and dominance” (Puts 2010: p168).

These same traits may also be attractive to women, since if a tall muscular man has higher reproductive success because he is better at fighting, then it pays women to mate with tall, muscular men so that their male offspring inherit these traits and hence themselves have high reproductive success, passing on the woman's own genes. Moreover, males with fighting prowess are better able to protect and provision their mates. However, this is secondary to their primary role in male-male fighting.

Moreover, highly masculine faces are not always attractive.

Thus, unlike the “supernormal” or “hyperfeminine” female faces that men find attractive in women, women rated “hypermasculine” faces as less attractive (p158). This, Etcoff speculates, is because they are perceived as overaggressive and unlikely to invest in offspring.

Analogously, the hypermasculine bodies of bodybuilders are not generally regarded as especially attractive to women, whereas then hyperfeminized bodies of glamor models, with absurdly large surgically-enhanced breasts, are indeed attractive to men.

Likewise, Etcoff reports that large eyes are perceived as attractive in men, but these are a neotenous, feminine, trait (p158). This, she proposes, is because they evoke women’s nurturance, a trait that evolved in a parental rather than a mating context.

Indeed, one study even found that women preferred males with more feminine faces (Perrett et al 1998), and another study suggested cyclical changes in female preferences (Penton-Voak & Perrett 2000).

Full (i.e. vastly overlong) review available here.

References
Gaulin & Boser 1990 Dowry as Female Competition, American Anthropologist 92(4):994-1005
Kenrick & Keefe 1992 Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in mating strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 15(1):75-133
Penton-Voak & Perrett DI 2000 Female preference for male faces changes cyclically: Further evidence. Evolution and Human Behavoir 21(1):39–48
Perrett et al 1998 Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness Nature 394(6696):884-7
Puts 2013 Beauty and the Beast: Mechanisms of Sexual Selection in Humans. Evolution and Human Behavior 31(3):157-175

[美音 · Rating 1 out of 5]

I’m very interested in how beauty plays a role in societal hierarchies so was super excited to pick up this book but simply could not read a book written by someone with no critical thinking skills. This book is a really long, unscientific monologue that uses personal anecdotes and faulty logic to support its blatantly loopholed premises.

[Yaroslava Tymoshchuk · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Не можна чекати на красу, ми її маємо створити".

"Видається, що феміністкам ліпше намагатися зміцнювати всі джерела жіночої сили, ніж одне з них - красу - очорнювати".

Крутий нонфікшн про природу та значення краси, утім, поки книжку переклали українською, минули 20 років, утверджуються нові канони й норми, цікаво було б апдейтнути

[Lolly K Dandeneau · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have mixed feelings on this book. It was very interesting and while I believe quite a lot of it is true, I just have always felt generalizations based on race, gender, and yes even 'our primitive instincts' just cannot be called FACT. Maybe the majority is inclined to choose partners based on such things as, for men, youthful women etc.... but thank god for the small percentage that does not. If it were true well are all inclined to crave such things as stated in the book, then wouldn't we all basically be chasing a small group of people?
I am the first to admit in our world (hell maybe in every time and place) beauty does tend to be favored, whether we like it, whether it's fair or not, but not every single person is after beauty as dictated by our 'primitive brain'.
What I did take away from this book, is that DUH men are after and attracted to women who are youthful, firm, wide eyed and beautiful and.. what?... they don't look to the soul or core of a woman... surely you jest :)
That said, there are a minority of men out there not ruled by their primitive urgings, and thank god for that.
This book was a bit simple though. I am not convinced of anything 100% just because it's called a 'scientific study', as we know, factual science today can be 100% false tomorrow.

[G (galen) · Rating 2 out of 5]

(Wasn't sure whether to give it two or three stars, could have gone either way...)

"Beauty is howlingly unfair" (from the conclusion)
yep.

I like the science-heavy segments, where the author explored possible evolutionary reasons for appearance/preference, especially when discussion mating practices amongst the animal world.

The parts that were my least favorite were where she used study after study to show what humans find "attractive" in a mate: I am a bit of an outlier and I prefer outliers, so the normative effect of studies had me feeling very... left out (too old, wrong shape, wrong color, etc).

She'd occasionally toss a bone my way by saying that once we understand the biology behind our attraction, we can can work to "resist our programing" and she'd mention cheating biology w/ cosmetics and cosmetic surgery... (reminds me, time to dye my roots)

The book is a push back against Naomi Wolf's The Beauty Myth, viewing feminism's "rejection of beauty" as sexual prudery and a denial of woman's power. However, in proving the deeply seeded forces behind physical attraction, she did only a half-hearted job of discussing alternatives for those not young, genetically gifted, or wealthy.

[Cassandra Kay Silva · Rating 4 out of 5]

I would have preferred if this book had touched more on the sociological aspects of beauty. Exploring things like how beautiful people interact in social situations, if they get better treatment maybe providing some statistical evidence or studies for this (of which I know there are many studies). Also perhaps if she could have explored the psychological aspects of when beauty meets ego, perhaps expounding more on characters in history like Cleopatra, who had an absolute plethora of beautifying aids at her disposal. Also maybe look throughout histories and cultures and compare/contrast what is considered beautiful across the world, and perhaps draw some conclusions from this about the lengths that people go through to beautify themselves. Instead the author very much focuses in on Caucasians, which frankly I don't think all cultures would find that beautiful, and for what she focused on I still felt like there were some major holes in her arguments. I enjoy non fiction, but at around 200 pages (a short read) this book could have provided a lot more in way of enlightening us about how very intertwined beauty is in society by bulking up a bit. I thought she brought up a few good evolutionary points, but could really have pulled more from other cultures.

[كيكه الوزير · Rating 3 out of 5]

At face value, this is a pretty decent book of statistics. A well written representation of how the world appears to be at the surface. But beyond that, it's leaps in logic are insulting, degrading, racist and even inherently sexist. It doesn't bother to delve deeper into any finding, simply taking every numerical representation of how the world currently works at face value and ignoring the root cause of those numbers. In other words, it's not a well thought out piece of work. It tries, but it doesn't succeed. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who is just starting to get educated about beauty standards in the modern world, but maybe it might pass as good bathroom lit.

[Greta Vasiulyte · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thank God im pretty

[Liz Tsaröva · Rating 2 out of 5]

Шось читаєш-читаєш, а потім не можеш знайти відповідь на питання, нашо ти це прочитала.

Можливо моя проблема з цією книжкою полягає в тому, що я від неї багато чого доброго очікувала, бо зустрічала на неї посилання в текстах, які мене приємно вразили. Та перше, що кидається в очі, — it did not age well. Написана в кінці минулого століття, сьогодні багато в чому вона не актуальна. І це я не лише про статистичні дані, з якими авторка нас регулярно ознайомлює.

По-друге, вона непослідовна. Краса — поняття широке, зрозуміло. Ну і мабуть шо треба якось фрагментарно його розглядати, а то якийсь вінегрет виходить. То ми говоримо про жіночу красу (спойлер: красуні — то в першу чергу білошкірі тендітні білявки з величезними грудьми, нАуКовО дОвЕдЕнО), а то раптом вже про чоловіків, трошки згадуємо приматів і частково мух з очима на довгих вусиках. Ось ми в Середньовіччі, а ось знову в 90-х. В останньому розділі замість обіцяних висновків нате вам ще дві теми, які якось не вийшло зачепити в основному тексті, тому втулимо сюди.

Складається враження, що переглядаєш прискорений павер пойнт, де авторка вирішила використати ВСІ можливі спецефекти. І ти ще не відійшла від ви��існення шторкою, а тобі вже вискакує наступний слайд з веселковими 3D-літерами.

Ну а третій фактор, який повпливав на мої враження від книги, — це саме видання. Помилки в тексті та перекладі зовсім не радують. А ще, зважаючи на зміст та (не)актуальність, книга для мене невиправдано громіздка. Гарно уявляю її в мінімалістичній м'якій обкладинці та з меншим розміром шрифту.

Може скластися враження, що я претендую на звання головного хейтера «Виживання найгарніших», але це не так. У цій книжці, як і в будь-якій іншій, можна знайти багато цікавог��. Просто я очікувала не набору захопливих фактів, а захопливого дослідження. Бувало й гірше, бувало й краще.

[AngiJo · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a review of the audiobook since I am not sure I would have made it through the written version. The book shares some interesting research-supported facts -- for example, the explanation of how infants process beauty and what the research says about our ability to quantify beauty. However, at times the author does repeat old theories about why younger people are considered more attractive than older, and why extremes in proportion, weight, and size are often unattractive across cultures.

This book is not for people who are not happy with their own looks or who are sensitive; it could even be triggering. Some of the research presented can be a downer for any woman past the age 35. And the attention she gives to female vs. male beauty is uneven. She spends more time explaining research findings about female beauty. All of that said, I did have a few aha moments while listening to the book, which I think others might too, if you can dissociate yourself and how you think about yourself from the research presented in this book.

I did not give the book 5 stars because one, I found it repetitive. It was as if she was fighting to reach a certain page count. Some of the topics certainly could have been given less attention. I also rated it lower due to the hetero-normative, Eurocentric nature of the book. Although she from time to time brought in research done in other cultures, most of the book was centered around explaining why Western white normative beauty standards are what they are and drawing comparisons between men and women. And though she suggests that what people tend to find beautiful is similar across cultures, I had hoped she'd bring in a bit more focused research to support that argument. The author grazes the line between good science and scientific justification of prejudice.

This book is rather old (published in 2000) so I hope that more current research studies on the topic include non-binary and transgender people too.

[Hồng Minh · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book offers a comprehensive exploration of beauty, tracing its history and examining how both primates and humans have perceived beauty over time. It delves into how beauty influences modern mating practices and social norms. The author thoroughly investigates the factors that shape human evolution, beliefs, and behaviors, drawing from disciplines such as sociology, biology, psychology, and economics, both retrospectively and prospectively.
As someone interested in how external appearances affect our perceptions and way of life, I found this book to be insightful. It serves as a valuable tool for better understanding both myself and others. While the book emphasizes the working mechanisms and indications of physical appearance throughout human history, it also highlights the influence of body language, voice, scent, and internal beliefs, suggesting that our response to beauty is more a trick of the brain than a true reflection of self.