HE Beautiful Person club is an exclusive one, and entry brings much – fame, wealth … and daughters. Think of the most beautiful couples in the world – they all have daughters. Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes? Check. Denise Richards and Charlie Sheen? Check. Brangelina and Bennifer? Check and check.
Coincidence? More like a biological inevitability, according to the new book “Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters” ($24, Perigree; in stores Sept. 4).
“Being beautiful is good for both boys and girls, but it’s better for girls – it enhances their reproductive success – so if parents are beautiful, it’s better to have girls because they can take advantage of that,” says psychologist and co-author Satoshi Kanazawa, answering the title question.
Statistics bear out the claim. The book cites a study that found young Americans who were rated “very attractive” had a 56 percent chance of having a daughter, whereas the uglies had a 52 percent chance of having a son – meaning, Kanazawa says, that being hot increases the odds of having a daughter by 36 percent.
This isn’t just limited to beauty, though – it also applies to “geeks” who work in fields like engineering and mathematics (who tend to have boys) and those in empathetic fields, such as nursing, teaching and social work (who tend to have daughters).
Throughout the book, Kanazawa and late co-author Alan S. Miller apply findings from evolutionary biology to current human behavior to answer burning questions like why women tend to lust after males who already have mates (guppies and quail do it, too) and why newborns look more like Daddy than Mommy (to reinforce paternity).
The premise is a controversial one – even among fellow scientists who fully believe that evolution is responsible for why humans have 10 fingers, two lungs and a pancreas.
They have a hard time wrapping their heads around the notion that the human brain was touched by evolution, because, darn it all, our minds (and our opposable thumbs) are what separates us from the animals – aren’t they?
It doesn’t help that “many of our findings are politically incorrect,” Kanazawa explains. “We argue that the difference between men and women is largely innate, not taught or learned: We are the way we’re made by nature.”
For example, social scientists (and feminists) attribute the disparity in salaries between men and women to discrimination, but evolutionary psychologists say that it’s merely the result of different motivations for earning money: Men have to earn cash to impress chicks, and women have better things to worry about.
This isn’t to say that evolutionary psychology should be used to excuse or justify societal unfairness.
“Scientists don’t excuse anything, we don’t justify, condemn or glorify anything, we only explain. This isn’t a guidebook on how we should behave,” says Kanazawa.
And it’s not just women who are getting the short end of the evolutionary stick. Men get their due.
“It’s harsh on everybody,” Kanazawa points out. “We’re saying that women don’t make as much money as men do because they’re not interested in money – that’s harsh, but we’re also saying that men are violent criminals and do everything they do to get laid.”
Come again?
“Nothing that humans do is untouched by evolution,” Kanazawa says. “And everything about evolution is related to our need to reproduce and survive.”
Read on to find out what kind of animals we really are.
Why do men prefer large breasts?
Good question – after all, it’s not like enormous, Salma Hayek-esque bazongas are better at feeding babies than teeny, tiny Kate Moss boobies. Anthropologists think that the reason a nicely stacked rack is attractive to men is because … they sag.
Larger, heavier breasts sag more conspicuously with age than smaller boobs do, making it easier for men to judge a woman’s age – and therefore her reproductive value – by sight. A perky bosom indicates youth, which in turn indicates fertility – which means a man has a good chance of spreading his seed. It’s hard to make the same age determination with diminutive tatas, however, which never sag but simply stay small.
Why is prostitution the world’s oldest profession?
Madams like Heidi Fleiss (pictured) saw a niche in men’s naturally selected desire for sexual variety, i.e., sex with as many partners as possible. Women generally don’t have the same innate desires, which is why the history of male hookers is a thin one.
Blame it on the ceaseless male impulse to reproduce. Unlike women, men’s ability to procreate increases by the number of women they have sexual access to. If a man has sex with 1,000 women in a year, he could potentially have 1,000 children (realistically about 30). But if a woman did the same, she’d still only have one kid.
And given the limited number of kids they can have in their lifetime and the potential cost of having sex with the wrong partner, women are more cautious about having sex with someone they don’t know well.
Why does marriage “settle” men down?
There’s one, single psychological mechanism that triggers men’s desire to compete and excel early in adulthood – be it intellectually, criminally or merely driving fast – but then significantly tapers off once kids are born.
Women in long-term relationships will recognize the mechanism: It’s the “I just don’t feel like it” reason. After marriage and kiddies, men just don’t want to spend hours in their jobs, taking great risks or committing crimes. Think of Pete Sampras (pictured), who retired shortly after he married in 2004.
Since everything men do is a means to a reproductive end, it stops making sense for them to keep taking risks once they’ve successfully sown their seed. Need proof? Car insurance statistics show that married men have fewer car accidents than single guys – because, you know, they don’t drive as fast. And as we all know, driving fast is totally a way to indirectly and unconsciously attract chicks. Just ask Al Gore III.
Why do politicians risk everything by having an affair (but only if they’re men)?
Sure, the nation clutched its collective pearls when Bill Clinton admitted his cigar shenanigans, but it’s nothing new. Powerful men throughout history have mated with many extracurricular women – lovers, concubines, slaves, harems, the local wench at the tavern and, yes, interns – but they almost always marry monogamously.
Basically, men are driven to achieve in order to increase their pool of sexually accessible women. Success – in business, politics, anything really – is just a means to a reproductive goal. Once they achieve the means, why not try to score a couple goals? Just don’t get caught doing it. The better question is, why the heck wouldn’t they?
Why might handsome men make bad husbands?
Beautiful people are genetically and developmentally healthier than unattractive people, making them far more desirable than an ugly person with stinky, lame DNA.
Because women tend to seek out lookers for short-term mates, owing to those most excellent genes, handsome men can afford to act like dogs. Basically, good-looking men are often dishonest and inattentive to their partners, simply because they can be – there are so many women chasing after them.
There are two avenues men can follow to maximize their reproductive success. The “dad” strategy, wherein they seek a long-term mate, stay with her and invest heavily in their kids, or the “cad” strategy, which involves having a large number of short-term mates, giving the kids shinola.
While all men may secretly desire to take the cad offensive, they’re limited by females, who ultimately decide sex partners. Since uglies aren’t in as much demand as hotties, homely males really don’t have any choice. Their only chance to pass on their he’s-got-a-great-sense-of-humor genes is to pray they can bag a long-term mate and convince her to squeeze out some puppies he’ll read to every night.
Empirically, handsome men have more affairs and aren’t as committed in marriages, which many wives seem to find undesirable – ergo, handsome to bed, homely to wed.