genes to pass on to their offspring; however, females have no direct way to asses the quality of a male’s genes. He hypothesized that if a female somehow became genetically programmed to be sexually attracted to males with a certain structure, one that would give those males some advantage at surviving, they would thereby gain an additional advantage because they would now transmit their genes to more offspring, who would in turn survive better and also be chosen by a female with such a preference, and so on and so on. In the second theory, proposed by Israeli zoologist Amotz Zahavi, the fact many structures functioning as body sexual signals are “so big or conspicuous that they constitute a health hazard to their owner, and also cost a lot of biosynthetic energy to grow. As a result, any creature surviving such a handicap is, in effect, boasting that they must have terrific genes in other respects” (Diamond, 1996). The final theory, “Advertising”, is similar to Zahavi’s theory, and was proposed by American zoologists Astrid Kodric- Brown and James Brown. It states that costly body structures (such as muscles and breasts) represent a honest advertisement of quality because an inferior animal could not afford the cost (Diamond, 1996 p.79). All three theories provide some insight as to why these preferences evolved. There are two main components to physical cues, faces and bodies. Males and females exhibit very different structure in both aspects, due to the presence of the hormones testosterone and estrogen. Humans are not indifferent to the effects of these chemicals. Like many other animal species, humans have evolved these tactics of signaling age, sex, reproductive status and individual quality as well as programmed responses to these traits. For examples, one may consciously admire Kate Moss’s legs or Arnold’s biceps, but humans are also “viscerally attuned to small...
