Ria had sent me a forward once. It went something like this:
“Your Brain is a unique piece of art. In the right side of the brain, there is nothing left, an in the left side of it, there is nothing right.”
I assume that this clichéd joke would have already been read by a million others. However, it got me thinking today as to why our behaviour is what it is. Why is it that women are turned on by certain factors and others are not? By turned on, what I refer to is sexually turned on and therefore, am referring to the courtship and mating process.
This quest of mine threw up some interesting finds, especially a book which deserves to find special mention in this category, “The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature”.
Geoffrey Miller, an American cognitive psychologist who teaches at University College, London, falls broadly within the evolutionary psychology camp, people who argue that no matter how odd our behaviors may look today, they make sense in terms of our hunter-gatherer ancestry. They purport to explain every detail of the human behaviour by referring to the ancestral environment in which our minds and behaviours developed.
As an example, they cite that some of the most bizarre occurrences could not have taken place had it not been for the reasons that they cite are present. For example, the plumage of the peacock, differing as they are from one another might be a case in point. Economically, Darwin could only see these structures as a hindrance, which they certainly are. However, as sexual attractants he believed that they could be explained by female choice; and experiments do seem to have confirmed that female peacocks prefer males with exaggerated plumage.
Alternatively, males in the human community with exaggerated body statistics may not be the ones who are the most “satisfying” to a female sexually, or have happy married lives. I state from my own deductions that what females or males normally look for is a wholesome human being. For example, why do human females have prominent breasts? Not, apparently, as direct sex attractants. No, it turns out that symmetry of bodily structure is a fitness indicator, and symmetry is more easily detectable among large breasts than small ones. What's more, the pertness of these appendages in young women advertises the period of maximum reproductive effectiveness -- said to be an advantage that outweighs the later penalties of gravity, which warn males off.
However, I disagree with Miller when he says that each and every characteristic of a human being has been evolved as a result of mating choice. I believe that sexual selection is different than natural, or “survival” selection, which refers to environmental factors such as climate or predators that affect reproductive success. Sexual selection is much more direct and potentially powerful; it is shaped by the mate preferences of the opposite sex. However, this is only to the extent that affect reproductive success. That the male biceps are bigger than females naturally can be explained by the fact that it is a fitness indicator is a bit hard to digest.
Whatever it is, I think that the whole point of the argument is to understand why there are some females that we “go for” and there are others whom we think are “sweet”, “nice” and so on, but do not think are suitable to be our partners. That, I believe, has been underlined by the fact that a person who is intellectually more capable than the average being, is financially stronger, is presentable enough and has a pleasant disposition has a far better chance of getting a mate than the others. Take any of the matters in its individuality, and the person may not stand out.
Therefore, the old saying does hold true.
May the Best Man Win…
Love, laughter n keep the Faith