Is sexual selection genetically effective in humans today?

[rothaer]

Everybody quickly accepts sexual selection as an explanation for an evolutionary genetic selection.

I admit that I always was sceptical and never really got it. I actually think that claiming a sexual selection is often an ultima ratio excuse for not (yet) being able to functionally explain the selection for a particular trait. And finding the attachment points for a particular selection can be hard, especially if it's about a co-selection, where the trait in question in fact is irrelevant.

Sexual selection is very plausible and powerful for some animals, where a majority may even be excluded from reproduction while few others impregnate all female animals. But this is not how it works with humans. I know that over time also small differences can have a big effect, but at least a tendency must then be visible.

Loads of ugly people get many children, to my impression even more children, in spite of that all can agree on that they are ugly. This is stunning. Only the few ultimate ugly or malformated get excluded from reproduction. But there is to me no indication of that what is closer to a beauty ideal is reproducing more.

Some years ago I for curiosity evaluated a bulk of "sexiest man alive" men and because they mostly were famous, it was possible to look up how many children they have. There was a huge spread of results, but the mean was something rather normal, say 2-3 children.

If someone says, yeah, but that may be over average within a "western society" where most of these are from, then I'm not even sure about that, but come on, this is not about somebody just good looking, it's about the sexiest men alive! So if there should be in force a sexual selection among today's humans for traits considered handsome, then I would expect a very clear result for the sexiest men alive. And in this context 2-3 children is a completely insignificant result.

And do today's beauty queens reproduce significantly over average? I doubt that. Of course I may be wrong.

Discuss.

[Harkonnen]

I think there are at least 3 types selection

1 sexual selection
2 adaptation to climate selection
3 random selection

I think you are correct that sexy stuff and climate don't always explain everything, sometimes some traits start to spread just kinda randomly.

[Peterski]

This is from "Human sexual selection" by David Puts (ScienceDirect):

"Mechanisms of sexual selection in men

(...) women’s ability to freely choose their mates
was probably limited ancestrally by men’s use of force and
social power to exclude other men from mates and to
coerce women. Over human evolution, male sexual coer-
cion of women probably involved the use of force and
threats against wives [38], as well as abduction [4]. More-
over, men’s traits appear to be shaped by selection mainly
for contest competition rather than mate attraction. Evi-
dence has begun to accumulate that across cultures,
men’s secondary sex traits, such as beards, deep voices,
and robust faces are more effective at intimidating other
men than they are at attracting women [39,40,41,42].
This contrasts with a previous emphasis on female mate
choice in the literature [8]. In addition, some evidence
indicates that men’s mating and reproductive success are
more strongly linked to dominance and status among [other] men than attractiveness to women [33,43]. (...)

Mechanisms of sexual selection in women

Although physical aggression is less frequent and less
injurious in women than in men, female physical aggression occurs in all societies and is most commonly provoked
by competition over mates[47]. Consistent with a function
in mating competition, female aggression increases with
sexual maturity, a female-biased local sex ratio, and male
resource variance [47]. However, ancestral women probably could not monopolize mates through contests as effectively as men could. Men’s larger size and strength would
have enabled them to partly circumvent the outcomes of
female contests. As a consequence, men could more freely
choose mates, probably causing male mate choice to predominate in mating competition among ancestral women.
Indeed, women compete to attract mates [20] and possess
anatomical traits seemingly shaped by male mate choice
rather than contest competition [8,48]. Several of
women’s traits, including gracile facial features, reduced
body hair, and high voices, increase the appearance of
youth and hence fertility and are preferred by men
[49,50]. Women’s body fat distribution also appears to
be designed to attract mates [29,51]. Placement of fat on
the hips, buttocks, and breasts may advertize fecundity
[52] and fat reserves essential to fetal and infant brain
development [53].

(...)

Summary

(...) Although multiple mechanisms
of sexual selection probably played roles in men’s and
women’s evolution, men’s psychology, behavior, and anatomy especially show evidence of adaptive design for
contest competition, whereas women’s phenotypes show
greater evidence of design for mate attraction."

[sean]

Loads of ugly people get many children, to my impression even more children, in spite of that all can agree on that they are ugly. This is stunning. Only the few ultimate ugly or malformated get excluded from reproduction. But there is to me no indication of that what is closer to a beauty ideal is reproducing more.

Sexual selection isn't always 'rational'. You can be perfectly healthy and be ugly as sin at the same time (mixed-race people for example lel).

As a matter of fact, ugly people exist due to males or females dominating sexual selection at any given time throughout history, permitting certain bloodlines and races to proliferate over others and make more people of a certain type (whether it's ugly cunts or not).

Other races failed to reproduce and eugenically build on their best people, instead they crushed them under collectivism, now they're almost entirely ugly and stupid social climbing drones looking to drag us down into their Malthusian trap.

Ugly people breed all the time, it’s just that they aren’t getting eaten by lions or having their skulls bashed in by cavemen anymore. We're also beyond natural selection at this point. Less attractive people can date, get married to each other, and make a baby with no barriers.

Attractive people may be seen as more desirable, but that doesn't necessarily translate into having more children than average. Evolution only acts upon genetic traits. Any non-genetic factor that affects attractiveness will muddle the picture. Makeup, exercise, money etc. These are all major non-genetic factors that can hugely affect how attractive a person seems to the opposite sex.

Plastic surgeons break the nose down into nine "aesthetic subunits" which they can alter to make it more attractive, that's not counting the chin, the jaw, the mouth, the ears, etc.

Millions of years ago, when food was scarce, having a beautiful mate was beneficial. Cavemen would walk past your mate and stop and just stare at her in awe. This would give you a chance to steal all the food they were carrying, thus giving you and your mate a higher chance of survival.

Anyway, it can go either way. If you allow females to dominate selection it can lead to dysgenics (a race with too much female power like the negroes, they tend to look much more masculine due to female selection), and if you allow males to dominate selection you can also get dysgenics (look at how low IQ and ugly arranged marriage/brown countries are), and sometimes it may lead to a eugenic results (though, not often).

A great deal of sexual selection is based on sex-linked traits. These have inherent limits, because men are attracted to feminine traits and women to masculine traits, but hypermasculine men pass masculine genes to their daughters and hyperfeminine women pass feminine genes to their sons.

For example, if you have a gene that makes you grow great tits, it can't make the population more attractive as a whole, because half of the carriers will have man-boobs.

With sedentary occupations and cheap food, obesity is a serious threat to sexual attractiveness, but few people's ancestors were sedentary and had access to cheap food, so genes that prevent you from eating yourself into a roughly spherical shape haven't been strongly selected for in the past.

Other traits are simply tough to evolve. Having a good immune system is what gives you symmetrical features, but sadly, the viruses and bacteria are evolving to fight our immune systems just as fast as we evolve to fight them.

[Jana]

I think it is effective, yes. People with mental issues often end up childless and excluded from reproduction in a great degree, regardless of how they look (and many can be attractive).
On the other hand healthy minded individuals will reproduce lot more easily them those with mental issues despite they may be uglier.

Only serious deformations prevent from reproduction imo, so looks does not matter that much. Healthy mind does. Mental issues are huge borden to reproduce, much more than ugly looks.

[Jana]

So in my opinion there is sexual selection for healthy individuals (not deformed, no serious mental issues, able to work and support family etc). But for beauty? Not really.
Ugly male with high status will reproduce much more easily than attractive man with low status and mental health problems.

Even for females, where looks matter more, it is like this: most men will settle for good with average looking healthy minded woman than with schizophrenic beauty queen.

[Peterski]

Loads of ugly people get many children, to my impression even more children

There was a study about this and it found out:

Women:

Adolescent attractiveness level - average number of children at age 53-56:

Not attractive - 2.67 (2.49–2.85)
Moderately attractive - 2.59 (2.41–2.77)
Attractive - 3.05 (2.87–3.24)
Very attractive - 2.80 (2.61–2.98)

Men:

Adolescent attractiveness level - average number of children at age 53-56:

Not attractive - 2.37 (2.19–2.55)
Moderately attractive - 2.65 (2.47–2.84)
Attractive - 2.65 (2.47–2.84)
Very attractive - 2.67 (2.49–2.86)

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3000557/

[JamesBond007]

I think it is effective, yes. People with mental issues often end up childless and excluded from reproduction in a great degree, regardless of how they look (and many can be attractive).
On the other hand healthy minded individuals will reproduce lot more easily them those with mental issues despite they may be uglier.

Only serious deformations prevent from reproduction imo, so looks does not matter that much. Healthy mind does. Mental issues are huge borden to reproduce, much more than ugly looks.


Nonsense, 'mental issues' don't exist in an objective scientific valid way :


Kenneth Kendler: “Implausible” That Psychiatric Diagnoses Even “Approximately True”


https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/2786972



“To argue that our DSM categories accurately correspond to reality would require that among the theories considered was one that was at least approximately true and that the right one was chosen. That is implausible,” Kendler writes. “Given the youth of our science and the complexity of our disorders, it is very unlikely that we now possess definitive theories of their etiology.”

In otherwords : there is little scientific evidence for psychiatric diagnoses and that he believes the DSM diagnoses do not “correspond to reality” and it is “implausible” that they are “approximately true.”


Kenneth S. Kendler (born July 12, 1950)[1] is an American psychiatrist best known for this pioneering research in psychiatric genetics, particularly the genetic causes of schizophrenia.[2] Kendler is one of the highest cited psychiatry researchers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Kendler

[Jana]

Nonsense, 'mental issues' don't exist in an objective scientific valid way :

Of course they exist as sky is blue, and you are great example of that. You are childless as well, just like Mortimer, Richmondbread and some others. It is no coincidence.

[rothaer]

This is from "Human sexual selection" by David Puts (ScienceDirect):

"Mechanisms of sexual selection in men

(...) women’s ability to freely choose their mates
was probably limited ancestrally by men’s use of force and
social power to exclude other men from mates and to
coerce women. Over human evolution, male sexual coer-
cion of women probably involved the use of force and
threats against wives [38], as well as abduction [4]. More-
over, men’s traits appear to be shaped by selection mainly
for contest competition rather than mate attraction. Evi-
dence has begun to accumulate that across cultures,
men’s secondary sex traits, such as beards, deep voices,
and robust faces are more effective at intimidating other
men than they are at attracting women [39,40,41,42].
This contrasts with a previous emphasis on female mate
choice in the literature [8]. In addition, some evidence
indicates that men’s mating and reproductive success are
more strongly linked to dominance and status among [other] men than attractiveness to women [33,43]. (...)

Mechanisms of sexual selection in women

Although physical aggression is less frequent and less
injurious in women than in men, female physical aggression occurs in all societies and is most commonly provoked
by competition over mates[47]. Consistent with a function
in mating competition, female aggression increases with
sexual maturity, a female-biased local sex ratio, and male
resource variance [47]. However, ancestral women probably could not monopolize mates through contests as effectively as men could. Men’s larger size and strength would
have enabled them to partly circumvent the outcomes of
female contests. As a consequence, men could more freely
choose mates, probably causing male mate choice to predominate in mating competition among ancestral women.
Indeed, women compete to attract mates [20] and possess
anatomical traits seemingly shaped by male mate choice
rather than contest competition [8,48]. Several of
women’s traits, including gracile facial features, reduced
body hair, and high voices, increase the appearance of
youth and hence fertility and are preferred by men
[49,50]. Women’s body fat distribution also appears to
be designed to attract mates [29,51]. Placement of fat on
the hips, buttocks, and breasts may advertize fecundity
[52] and fat reserves essential to fetal and infant brain
development [53].

(...)

Summary

(...) Although multiple mechanisms
of sexual selection probably played roles in men’s and
women’s evolution, men’s psychology, behavior, and anatomy especially show evidence of adaptive design for
contest competition, whereas women’s phenotypes show
greater evidence of design for mate attraction."

Interesting, thanks. I can agree to all, if "intimdating other men" means impressing in personal meeting.

Going with this, essentially only the women are shaped for sexual attraction. Of course this elevates the chances to get impregnated by a man that can choose among many women. But will the less attractive woman really remain unimpregnated and reproduce less? There is not much sex needed to contionously impregnate women.

I actually think that the reproductive net outcome is not very much connected to sex or impregnation (because that ought to be possible for quite everyone), but more about rising children without big losses. And for that power and skills (of a father) are more helpful than looking handsome. Maybe the "beauty" of women is not advantagous for attracting men for impregnation (anyone can get impregnated anyhow, cf. above), but for motivating the man to stay with her after impregnation...

[Jana]

Interesting, thanks. I can agree to all, if "intimdating other men" means impressing in personal meeting.

Going with this, essentially only the women are shaped for sexual attraction. Of course this elevates the chances to get impregnated by a man that can choose among many women. But will the less attractive woman really remain unimpregnated and reproduce less? There is not much sex needed to contionously impregnate women. I actually think that the reproductive net outcome is not very much connected to sex or impregnation (that ought to be possible for quite everyone), but more about rising children without big losses. And for that power and skills (of a father) are more helpful than looking handsome. Maybe the "beauty" of women is not advantagous for attracting men for impregnation (anyone can get impregnated anyhow, cf. above), but for motivating the man to stay with her after impregnation...

Well said. From experience I have with men around me (family, male friends etc), their selection for beauty isn't for sex but for relationship. Most men I know had no problems to and did sleep with ugly women, but they didn't date or marry them afterwards. There better looking women were by far preferred, except if they were not healthy.

[Peterski]

Well said. From experience I have with men around me (family, male friends etc), their selection for beauty isn't for sex but for relationship. Most men I know had no problems to and did sleep with ugly women, but they didn't date or marry them afterwards.

Nowadays if these women have children from casual sex with such men, these children will survive due to social welfare support from the state.

So there is no selection because the state (= taxpayers, including all men as a collective) support them:

[in the example below she has 15 children with several fathers and all of them are absent]


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBqjZ0KZCa0

But in pre-modern societies, kids of single moms had a low chance of surviving to adulthood (child mortality was high even in wealthy families).

[Zhulta]

I think the gracile features of japanese are a product of sexual selection. Especially the tropics seem to produce not only dark skinned but also platyrrhine individuals, maybe young infants with small, narrow noses have it hard breathing in the tropical, humid environment and die more frequently than those with broad noses? IMO mongoloids eyefolds are an production of cold wind and combined with snow glare to product the sensible eyeballs and tear duct. Maybe the kinky hair of negroids and australoids hinders parasites somewhat. So i think a few traits are an adaption to climate and such, but this IMO plays only really a role for hunter gatherers, once they are agricultural and change the environment around them i think this pressure disappears or slows down.


Does anyone think it could it be possible that a patriarchial society favours more gracile and refined types in the end or has the potential to produce them atleast, especially woman with feminine bodies and delicate faces, with more gracile man and woman on average, while a matriarchy favours rather masculine trends, as the woman would select the strongest, fittest men and woman themselves also would look squat and unfeminine since there is less sexual pressure on them.

[Peterski]

(...)

This is a matriarchal society and I think they look normal just like other Asians:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_l9D7tEixc

[Jana]

Nowadays if these women have children from casual sex with such men, these children will survive due to social welfare support from the state.

So there is no selection because the state (= taxpayers, including all men as a collective) support them:

[in the example below she has 15 children with several fathers and all of them are absent]


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBqjZ0KZCa0

But in pre-modern societies, kids of single moms had a low chance of surviving to adulthood (child mortality was high even in wealthy families).

True.

[Tongio]

Sexual selection is stronger than ever, mainly on man, that links to our hypercompetitive societies
That is because woman these days have many many options and they can be as picky as they want .Maybe that is one of the reasons why average global height increased so much along with better nutrition of course , since height is a trait woman favor.
In the past If you were a short bro under 170 cm ,you would have much bigger chances of reproducing because woman had less options and were limited by distance and social circle to a few option of man therefore other things were taken in consideration and looks was less important.

[Chelubey]

Mental problems are closely related to general health and are often an indicator of poor health in general.
This is often the result of metabolic disorders as a result of endocrine, genetic or gastrointestinal diseases. Most mental disorders can probably be reversed with dietary adjustments / supplementation with vitamins and minerals or hormone therapy.
Depressed people are usually not energetic, lazy, they suffer from CFS, they have fewer neurons in the brain. This is due to less ATP synthesis and mitochondrial abnormalities. Their neurological system lacks energy to function properly, and neither does the body.

[Comealongwithme]

For the most part No. Whilst it's true that beautiful people naturally have a higher value above their unattractive peers, it doesn't necessarily mean they will have more success in reproducing and passing down those genes, if anything, it should be harder for Beautiful people to reproduce because society places them at the top of the hierarchy, many potential mates may avoid them for fear that they are unworthy of being partners with them or they may assume that Beautiful person have a superiority complex and deem them as unworthy. This is also why Beautiful people often times are lonely and have less children compared to others and besides, Humans today are far too complex to be boxed in so no sexual selection is not as effective today as it may have been years ago.

[Immanenz]

to some degree, but you can always brainwash the mass into one or another direction, so preferences can change quickly. Looks is only one part of sexual selection, not necessary the major one. We got used that looks is less important for men, but than again this can shift as well and partially it did. There is probably a need for some balance for the sake of soceity as already mentioned by others as well.

[bvnny]

Traits that show genetic superiority are still seen as more desirable, like being tall and having symmetric traits, so I would say that, for the most part, sexual selection is still effective...

Still, there are more exceptions to the rule nowadays, since, in 2021, people can reproduce regards of their genetics by betabuxxing, niche appealing, etc.

[Boudin]

Loads of ugly people get many children, to my impression even more children, in spite of that all can agree on that they are ugly.

I don't know about this man, I don't have any children.

[Insuperable]

I don't think sexual selection revolves mainly around beauty. Perhaps it is somewhat effective on a bigger scale when it comes to that.

[Comealongwithme]

You also need to have a great personality too. Looks without personality is useless.

[rothaer]

I think it is effective, yes. People with mental issues often end up childless and excluded from reproduction in a great degree, regardless of how they look (and many can be attractive).
On the other hand healthy minded individuals will reproduce lot more easily them those with mental issues despite they may be uglier.

Only serious deformations prevent from reproduction imo, so looks does not matter that much. Healthy mind does. Mental issues are huge borden to reproduce, much more than ugly looks.

I can agree to that with exclamation mark.

If you are an everybody Joe, male ore female, there is no big gain to get above that. Ofc., it's more pleasant to be very handsome and beautiful and everybody wants to be with you, but the main gain of that is just pleasure and comfort. To my observation it will regularly not yield better net results in reproduction.

Doubtlessly reproduction is not the only aspect of life, but this biological approach is the topic here, not if you live well or in a desaster, not if you enjoy your life or do suffer. Also, bacteria in a Petri dish are not judged by their happiness, but just if they grow or not.

[rothaer]

Sexual selection isn't always 'rational'. You can be perfectly healthy and be ugly as sin at the same time (mixed-race people for example lel).

As a matter of fact, ugly people exist due to males or females dominating sexual selection at any given time throughout history, permitting certain bloodlines and races to proliferate over others and make more people of a certain type (whether it's ugly cunts or not).

Other races failed to reproduce and eugenically build on their best people, instead they crushed them under collectivism, now they're almost entirely ugly and stupid social climbing drones looking to drag us down into their Malthusian trap.

Ugly people breed all the time, it’s just that they aren’t getting eaten by lions or having their skulls bashed in by cavemen anymore. We're also beyond natural selection at this point. Less attractive people can date, get married to each other, and make a baby with no barriers.

Attractive people may be seen as more desirable, but that doesn't necessarily translate into having more children than average. Evolution only acts upon genetic traits. Any non-genetic factor that affects attractiveness will muddle the picture. Makeup, exercise, money etc. These are all major non-genetic factors that can hugely affect how attractive a person seems to the opposite sex.

Plastic surgeons break the nose down into nine "aesthetic subunits" which they can alter to make it more attractive, that's not counting the chin, the jaw, the mouth, the ears, etc.

Millions of years ago, when food was scarce, having a beautiful mate was beneficial. Cavemen would walk past your mate and stop and just stare at her in awe. This would give you a chance to steal all the food they were carrying, thus giving you and your mate a higher chance of survival.

Anyway, it can go either way. If you allow females to dominate selection it can lead to dysgenics (a race with too much female power like the negroes, they tend to look much more masculine due to female selection), and if you allow males to dominate selection you can also get dysgenics (look at how low IQ and ugly arranged marriage/brown countries are), and sometimes it may lead to a eugenic results (though, not often).

A great deal of sexual selection is based on sex-linked traits. These have inherent limits, because men are attracted to feminine traits and women to masculine traits, but hypermasculine men pass masculine genes to their daughters and hyperfeminine women pass feminine genes to their sons.

For example, if you have a gene that makes you grow great tits, it can't make the population more attractive as a whole, because half of the carriers will have man-boobs.

With sedentary occupations and cheap food, obesity is a serious threat to sexual attractiveness, but few people's ancestors were sedentary and had access to cheap food, so genes that prevent you from eating yourself into a roughly spherical shape haven't been strongly selected for in the past.

Other traits are simply tough to evolve. Having a good immune system is what gives you symmetrical features, but sadly, the viruses and bacteria are evolving to fight our immune systems just as fast as we evolve to fight them.

Agreed to most but:

"Millions of years ago, when food was scarce, having a beautiful mate was beneficial. Cavemen would walk past your mate and stop and just stare at her in awe. This would give you a chance to steal all the food they were carrying, thus giving you and your mate a higher chance of survival.":

No, the cavemen would not just have stared in awe. They would have raped her. Congrats!

That's why most men would cheer for an extraordinary beautiful woman, but nevertheless would not like to have her as their wife. If all other men do get nervous and do act with desire regarding your wife, would you seriously think that would be of any advantage for you? Come on, that's a motvation to kill you even.

[rothaer]

Nowadays if these women have children from casual sex with such men, these children will survive due to social welfare support from the state. (...)

I fully agree. Today's biological selection in the "western world" is basically for carelessness. If you don't care, others do. Societies that are like that, should be aware of what they actually do. Congrats for this new selective direction!

[rothaer]

Traits that show genetic superiority are still seen as more desirable, like being tall and having symmetric traits, so I would say that, for the most part, sexual selection is still effective... (...)

I miss the connecting step between being desirable and and effective sexual selection. It seems often been taken for granted and not even worth talikng about. But I dare asking it: Does being more desirable (today) pay off in having a greater net reproduction?

[E1b1b]

So in my opinion there is sexual selection for healthy individuals (not deformed, no serious mental issues, able to work and support family etc). But for beauty? Not really.
Ugly male with high status will reproduce much more easily than attractive man with low status and mental health problems.

Even for females, where looks matter more, it is like this: most men will settle for good with average looking healthy minded woman than with schizophrenic beauty queen.


In the west right now looks are being selected first, all that other stuff is secondary. Only a very serious mental illness will prevent chad from getting pussy. There are even examples of NEET chads pulling women regularly and a hard working ugly dude getting nothing. So i think selection is flipping towards looks exclusively at least in the west.

[E1b1b]

You also need to have a great personality too. Looks without personality is useless.

Your looks are your personality

[Comealongwithme]

Your looks are your personality

Looks are the attraction, personality is what seals the deal.

[Peterski]

Does being more desirable (today) pay off in having a greater net reproduction?

I already showed you a study (see my posts above) which says that attractive people have more kids than not attractive people:

For men: 2.67 (very attractive) / 2.65 (attractive) vs. 2.37 (not atttractive)
For women: 2.80 (very attractive) / 3.05 (attractive) vs. 2.67 (not attractive)

[rothaer]

I already showed you a study (see my posts above) which says that attractive people have more kids than not attractive people:

For men: 2.67 (very attractive) / 2.65 (attractive) vs. 2.37 (not atttractive)
For women: 2.80 (very attractive) / 3.05 (attractive) vs. 2.67 (not attractive)

"Very attractive" women get 0.25 less than "attractive" women.
And "very attractive" men get 0.02 children more than "attractive" men.

So these categories do not seriously indicate that "very attractive" pays off more than "attractive".

As for the "not attractive" category the difference to the "very attractive" is 0.3 children (men) and 0.13 children (women). That difference is not that big and if you consider that this, which is obviously the only category for unattractive, contains also the ugliest, which I admit are even prevented from reproducing, the remaining "not attractive" must have higer figures.

So if we remove the ultimate ugly (that will be prevented from reproducing) I see no difference in reproduction in favor for attractiveness for the remaining individuals. This is in line with my general impression (which may nevertheless be wrong).

[Peterski]

So if we remove the ultimate ugly (that will be prevented from reproducing) I see no difference in reproduction in favor for attractiveness for the remaining individuals. The figures mentioned by you do not support that.

The "ultimate ugly" are rather not so numerous, but few among the population, so I don't think that if you remove them there will be no difference?

BTW generally what is considered attractive by the majority of humans, are average features - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averageness

"This phenomenon is now known as "averageness-effect", that is, high physical attractiveness tends to be indicative of the average traits of the population."

This is why morphs (composite faces of many individuals) are perceived as more attractive, than any individual face except maybe very unique ones.

[rothaer]

(...) BTW generally what is considered attractive by the majority of humans, are average features - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averageness

"This phenomenon is now known as "averageness-effect", that is, high physical attractiveness tends to be indicative of the average traits of the population."

This is why morphs (composite faces of many individuals) are perceived as more attractive, than any individual face except maybe very unique ones.

A very good hint, thanks. I actually was not yet aware of that, but it makes very much sense.