Eine interessante Studie zu bestimmten Schönheitsmerkmalen bei Frauen und deren evolutionärer Bedeutung:
Nulligravidy bedeutet, dass sie noch keine Kinder hat.
Es wären demnach Anzeichen dafür, dass sie noch Kinderlos ist, was bedeutet, dass man keine Ressourcen auf fremde Kinder verwenden muss und das sie im „heiratsfähgien“ Alter ist. Dazu noch bestimmte Nährstoffe, die sich vorteilhaft auf den Nachwuchs auswirken.
Our findings support the prediction that human males will use anthropometric measures like WHR, waist/stature and BMI as indicators of nubility and reproductive value, and thus strongly supports the results of Andrews et al., 2017 who found that these measures were strongly related to assessments of reproductive value (youth and nulliparity) which was in turn strongly related to attractiveness.
In addition to predicting a preference for low WHRs and BMIs, the nubility hypothesis predicts that other characteristics associated with female nubility will be judged attractive; and there is some supporting evidence for several of these. Thus, studies show a strong male preference for neotenous facial features and younger faces (Alley, 1993; Collins & Missing, 2003; Cunningham, 1986; Furnham & Reeves, 2006; Henss, 1991; Ishi, Gyoba, Kamachi, Mukaida, & Akamatsu, 2004; Johnston & Franklin, 1993; Jones, 1995; Jones & Hill, 1993). In a recent study with American men as raters, female facial attractiveness was significantly negatively related to age despite the fact that the rated women ranged only from 18 to 26 years old (Wheatley et al., 2014). Three studies that included prepubertal faces have found a preference for faces younger than 15 (Fink, Grammer, & Matts, 2006; Jones, 1995; Röder, Fink, & Jones, 2013). Ratings of facial and body attractiveness are strongly correlated (Bleske-Rechek, Kolb, Stern, Quigley, & Nelson, 2014).
Also supporting the nubility hypothesis are associations of both nubility and attractiveness with lighter homogeneous complexions (Barankin, Silver, & Carruthers, 2002; Feinman & Gill, 1978; Fink et al., 2006; Fink, Grammer, & Thornhill, 2001), thicker lips (Gunn et al., 2009; Sforza et al., 2010), breasts which have just reached adult size and shape undisturbed by gravity or parity (Coe & Steadman, 1995; Marlowe, 1998), and more youthful higher-pitched female voices, (Awan, 2006; Feinberg, DeBruine, Jones, & Perrett, 2008; Fraccaro et al., 2011; Pipitone & Gallup Jr, 2008). In a clever and ambitious study, Fessler et al. (2005) concluded that a male preference for small foot size in women is also best understood as an indicator of youth and nulliparity since women’s foot size increases with age and parity. The nubility hypothesis also correctly predicts that in populations where nubile women have higher BMIs than older parous women due to maternal depletion, men will prefer women with the higher BMIs that locally indicate nubility (Sherry & Marlowe, 2007; Sugiyama, 2005; Yu & Shepard, 1998). Finally, the nubility hypothesis predicts that women past the age of nubility will be highly motivated to use artificial means to make themselves appear younger, which is consistent with the $16 billion American women spend each year on cosmetic surgery and the $8 billion per year spent on products which simulate youth.
As noted above, Symons (1995) suggested several reasons why a preference for female nubility would increase male fitness. Mating with a nubile female potentially captures all of her reproductive potential and eliminates competition between his children and prior children, increases the likelihood that she has kin for support, and increases the chance that she will survive to complete investment in his offspring. It also addresses the problem that older women will likely already be pregnant or lactating due to the preemptive mating strategies of his competitors (Marlowe, 2005; Roth & Xing, 1994; Strassmann, 1997; Symons, 1979, 1995).
The preference of human males for nubile females is plausibly related to a set of derived and adaptively associated human traits which differ from those of our close primate relatives: 1) Because human mating bonds are more durable, a man who pairs with a nubile woman increases his chance of reproducing with her in her more fertile years. 2) The extended alloparenting system of humans (Hill & Hurtado, 2009; Hrdy, 2009) makes the larger kin network of a younger (vs. older) female mates a more valuable asset in humans. 3) Paternal investment makes it more important for men to minimize exposure to prior offspring of a non-nubile woman. 4) The much larger brains of humans require proportionately more neurodevelopmental provisioning than do other primates. Women’s gluteofemoral fat depot is itself a highly derived trait (Pitts & Bullard, 1968; Pond, 1998), and is predictably drawn down by successive pregnancies (Lassek & Gaulin, 2006). This maternaldepletion makes nubile females the best brain provisioners in a way that would be considerably less relevant in smaller-brained apes.
Die Gründe dafür auf relativ junge Frauen zu stehen noch einmal etwas übersichtlicher: