20060801

A shift in the beauty standard, Baby Jane


Hottie parents are more likely to have a daughter (for their first child) than a son, a London School of Economics report says.
It's likely, though not stated in the media report, that the gender of a 2nd child is influenced by the gender of the already-present first child.

The evolutionary logic? Women are more likely to benefit from physical beauty; the
reproductive success of men depends in part on the status of their father, and the reproductive success of women depends partially on their physical attractiveness. (as well as signs of youthfulness.)

The question remains: how do reproductive processes "know" that the parents are attractive? What signs of beauty are able to trickle down from the mind of the person who's always been told they're hot, who has always enjoyed high status, from their ego to their Fallopian tubes or seminal vesicles? I mean, that's what has to happen, right?




2 Comments:

Anonymous matt said...

Presumably it's something related to the dad, right? Some guys shoot more Xs than others, and there's a selective advantage for X-prone hot guys (maybe related to the success with which they mate with attractive women). Unless there is some kind of post-fertilization selection going on.

11:16 AM  
Anonymous Ruggie said...

Given that the average guy releases 250 million sperm per ejaculation, the ratio of X:Y sperm are pretty nearly 1:1 (50:50) given no chromosomal abberations.

This study may be nothing else than a superficial report of the declining sex ratios observed upon establishment of modern industry in a population. That is, technology is reducing the number of males born. Undeveloped countries still display a 'normal' higher birthrate of males.

JAMA article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed

Decline of U.S. male births over the last two decades:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005083.html

1:07 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home