Why looks count?

Recently bought a copy of my all-time fav magazine, the BBC Focus magazine at a real dirt cheap price of $5.... $5RM at KL. Those familiar with such imported magazines will know that they typically cost in excess of $10 in S'pore. Among the libraries, I think only Tampines and one other library have those under reference section, the national library at Bugis do not even have them at all. Its a Science magazine in layman language and the best part of it is its Q&A section where experts answer almost any questions the readers may have.

One interesting topic it had in its March 2008 print is regarding the Sexy-son hypothesis. The hypothesis explains females tend to prefer physically attractive males hoping their partner's good looks will be passed on to their offsprings who in turn have a better chance of securing a mate. In short, a sexy dad gives a sexy son who will have no problems carrying on the family line.

With regards to this hypothesis, one would presume that 'ugliness' (assuming a trait) would be naturally eliminated through this process and everyone would be yandaos and chio bus, however it is also said that physical attractiveness is subjective (which is true), and people tend to choose a partner of similar level of attractiveness as themselves. This in turn leads to 2 things:

1) Physically less attractive people are paired up with each other as they find each other attractive in their own perception. Their physical traits are passed on in their children. 'Ugliness' passed on.

2) People with high level of attractiveness have problems finding a partner since their level of attractiveness means there is only a small percentage of the opp sex who can match their attractiveness, counteracting the Sexy-son where attractive means guarantee for mate.

From the Sexy-son hypothesis, comes another spin-off on why females tend to be promiscous. It is said that females prefer a more feminine male as their lifelong partner as they are more likely to provide care for the mother and the children. However such males are not perceived as physically attractive and do not produce sexy-sons, thus putting their offsprings at a disadvantage. Thus it is said that females are biologically tuned to be attracted to masculine males during ovulation with the hope of having offsprings (affair) with a masculine male yet

have a feminine male as a lifelong partner to take care of the children (who aren't his, or maybe some aren't), suggesting females are naturally promiscous in order to encourage evolution. However many have come to believe that females tend to be more faithful in relationships and it is the males that appeared to be more promiscous instead. This debunks the hypothesis and so if you have had the patience to read this thing, I am sorry to tell you that all that is said above is absolutely inconclusive. Happy holidays!