A biology letter reported today
asserts that handsome men evolved due to selective pressure from 'picky' females. Some of the reasoning is good, but I'm not sure I buy it. First of all, what constitutes "handsome" or "attractive" is debatable. Assuming that it's what we today think of may be silly: an entire field of psychologists are still teasing that bit apart. Secondly, it's generally presumed that whatever traits are 'naturally' (i.e., not culturally) attractive have some correlation to viability, and suggest the ability to produce viable offspring: big eyes mean good vision; nice legs means fast runner; big breasts means can feed babies; strong arms suggest ability to defend and provide; etc. I'd like to see the data explored, but I think there are more useful things to examine.