For decades, we have been told that what we find attractive—and by extension, what we consider "modest"—is merely a social construct. We are taught that standards of beauty are arbitrary and that sexual responses are learned behaviors. However, an examination of the peer-reviewed research suggests a much more provocative reality: human attraction isn't a cultural choice; it is a biological mandate. In fact, physical attraction is foundational to human mating [1]. More specifically, physical attraction within the larger animal kingdom operates via a series of mating displays (also referred as “courtship displays” or “sexual displays”). These effectively function to attract a mate for the purpose of pair bonding and reproduction [2][3].

We must remember that we are rational animals. The rational aspect of our being distinguishes us as human beings. Our animal nature does not cease even though we are humans nor does our sexuality or our sexual instincts as males and females [4].

The 200-Millisecond Judgment

According to Suzanne Brizendine, human males are designed to “zoom in on certain features that indicate reproductive health . . . [prominent] breasts, small waist, full hips. Men’s number-one mate-detection circuit [is] visual.” [5]

Some have asserted that sexual arousal is largely cultural, but countless peer-reviewed, cross-cultural studies have proven otherwise [6][7][8][9][10][11]. An example of a common myth related to this is a belief that Victorian men were automatically sexually aroused by the mere sight of an ankle, but this is essentially an urban legend [12].

Sexual displays are designed so that human males feel drawn to, desirous of, and magnetized by the sexual display from another female. Males are most sexually aroused by visual stimulation. They cannot help but attune to objective sexual displays of fecundity (the measure of a female’s biological capacity to successfully conceive and give birth to a healthy human infant) [13].

Stephanie Ortigue and Francesco Bianchi-Demicheli discovered that the male brain utilizes the medial preoptic area (MPOA), a region found within the hypothalamus that acts as a central hub for sexual motivation and behavior. The MPOA processes a female’s body (female morphology) and decides if she is sexually desirable within the first 200 milliseconds of seeing her [14].

This completely bypasses the pre-frontal cortex, the executive functioning part of the brain. It is not until after the MPOA has already finished its automated assessment that the male has the actual cognitive decision to look away or let his brain continue down its pre-wired neural mating path. Therefore, what males find “attractive,” “hot,” or “sexy” is directly correlated with sexuality, mating, fecundity, and reproduction. One cannot separate the two.

Fecundity Signals: The Science of the Hourglass

As Nancy Etcoff puts it, “Human sexual displays are specifically designed to inflame our desires, and therein lies the secret of their unnerving power.” [15] Highlighting, amplifying, spotlighting, or exaggerating fecundity signals [16] or mimicking physical signs of sexual arousal [17] are the most common mating displays seen in human females.

An important sexual signal is the waist-to-hip ratio or WHR. A .70 WHR is reflective of the much sought after hour-glass figure. A study published by the International Journal of Endocrinology states, “High estradiol concentrations are deemed as responsible for maintaining a low WHR [.70 Waist-to-Hip Ratio], since this steroid regulates fat accumulation in the buttocks, hip, thighs, and bosom.” [18] The research article goes on to affirm that a low WHR “has been correctly identified as an ‘honest’ signal of potential female fertility, supported by gynecological findings.” [19]

The research shows:

• Fertility Correlation: Women with a waist-to-hip ratio below .80 were twice as likely to get pregnant in comparison to those who had a waist-to-hip ratio above .80 [20].
   
• The Universal Constant: Cross-cultural studies covering six continents have universally shown a preference for a low hip to waist ratio (.70 average) [21][22][23][24][25][26]. This ratio has remained at a steady constant near .70 for over 2,500 years [27].
   
• Predicting Offspring Health: A lower WHR is a useful proxy for predicting cognitive ability in offspring. According to the data, “controlling for other correlates of cognitive ability, women with lower WHRs and their children have significantly higher cognitive test scores.” [28]

In our culture, WHR is sexually signaled via form-fitting clothes (around the waist and hips) which serves to highlight, amplify, accentuate, or even exaggerate their WHR.

Breasts and Reproductive Potential

In a research study published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, women who had both a low waist-to-hip ratio and prominent breasts had 37% higher levels of estrogen. “Levels of E2 that are 37% higher means a female’s chances of conceiving increases three-fold (300%). Essentially, with a percentage that is north of 30%, a female is three times more likely to get pregnant.” [29]

Because prominent breasts are associated with higher fertility [30], they serve as an honest signal of potential or residual fertility. In Western culture, the breast-fecundity link is sexually signaled via form-fitting tops which serves to highlight, amplify, accentuate, or even exaggerate breast shape [31][32].

The Modern Beauty Competition

Many married women will consistently invest a great deal of resources and time by partaking in mating displays (sexual displays) to look attractive because they want to feel good about themselves and be accepted by others [33]. In Western civilization, “attractive” has often been synonymous with looking “hot.” [34] Looking “hot” precisely means to look sexually desirable (having a high mate value because of one’s fecundity) [35].

David Buss notes the scale of this competition:

“Modern cosmetology exploits women’s evolved psychology of competing for mates, and women who do not make effective use of methods to enhance their appearance hurt their chances at attracting valuable mates. This situation has created a runaway beauty competition in which the time, effort, and money expended on appearance have reached levels unprecedented in human history... The cosmetics industry does not create desires so much as it exploits the desires that are already there.” [36]

Heather Heying describes this as "hotness-amplifying femininity":

“Hotness-amplifying femininity puts on a full display, advertising fertility and urgent sexuality. It invites male attention by, for instance, revealing flesh, by painting on signals of sexual receptivity, [wearing] clothes that highlight sexually-selected anatomy and make-up that hints at impending orgasm.” [37]

Painting on Sexual Receptivity: The Biological "Good Lie"

Signs of sexual receptivity are visible physiological signals that a female will display when she is sexually aroused. These exist to further encourage and stimulate the male on his progression to pair bond. Scientific research has shown us these signals—such as pupil dilation, darkening of the lips, blushing of the cheeks, and slight drooping of the eyelids—can be successfully and powerfully “painted on” with cosmetics.

As Christie Wilcox states in "The Science of Makeup":

“Blood flow also increases during arousal, so those red lips [from lip stick] are specifically giving the illusion that she’s interested in YOU, which of course is bound to draw attention. That increased blood flow also pinkens the cheeks, so blush, too, adds to this effect. Makeup works because it’s a good lie. Makeup works because it completely fabricates sexual availability, thus making a woman seem more appealing.” [38]

Beyond a general sense of "beauty," cosmetics function as a targeted mimicry of the body's peak moments of arousal:

• Blushing of the Cheeks: Vanessa Van Edwards states, “When we are attracted to someone, blood will flow to our face, causing our cheeks to get red. This happens to mimic the orgasm effect where we get flushed. It is an evolutionary way the body tries to attract the opposite sex. This is why women wear blush [to be attractive to the opposite sex].” [39] By applying blush, a woman is creating a permanent visual signal of the "flush" that naturally only occurs during intense sexual excitement or climax.
   
• Darkening of the Lips: Scientific research shows that lip colour affects perceived sex typicality and attractiveness because it mimics the vascular engorgement—the rush of blood to the surface—that occurs during arousal [40]. Red or darkened lipstick serves to maintain a constant "sexualized" state for the female face, indicating interest and availability through a biological illusion.
   
• Pupil Dilation: While the pupil naturally dilates in response to interest or sexual attraction, makeup is used to amplify this cue. By using dark eyeliner and mascara, a woman creates a high-contrast border around the eye that makes the pupils appear larger and more open [41]. This visual cue is processed by others as a sign of sexual interest and receptivity, even if no such interest exists.
   
• Bedroom Eyes: Slight Drooping of the Eyelids: Often called "bedroom eyes," this look is achieved through the use of eyeshadow and eyeliner to mimic the relaxation of the facial muscles. Stephanie Buck notes that women use eye shadow to mimic the “half-closed, heavy-lidded look [that] oozes seduction and release. Over time, women have smoked their lids [with eye shadow] for added sultriness.” [42]  Paul Ekman expounds, “Why do bedroom eyes exist? Why do we associate that with sexiness? It’s because in the last stage of sexual encounters, a moment or two before orgasm, one of the muscles that keeps the upper eyelid up relaxes and the eyes begins to droop. So, someone who has bedroom eyes in a sense looks like they are always on the verge of orgasm.” [43]

The MPOA part of the male brain is programmed to automatically interpret/process the visual image of a woman who artificially paints on these signals of sexual arousal as signs of sexual receptivity [44][45]. David Buss observes that “women who sexualize their appearance [partake in sexual displays] succeed in evoking approaches from men.” [46]

Assortative Mating: How We Pair Off

Some may ask how those who are not as attractive still get married. The answer is positive assortative mating (PAM) [47]. Men and women sort into pair bonds that are non-random and can even be described as “ordered.” Each male or female has a “mate value” based on characteristics like physical attractiveness, income, and character; people with similar “mate value” pair-off [48]. This ensures that those with mate values of 8 will pair off with 8s and 4s with 4s, etc., ensuring that for the most part, most humans can pair bond rather than live in isolation and loneliness [49].

Take Action: The Prudent Path

Because these sexual displays are efficacious regardless of the intent of the one displaying, they unavoidably trigger attraction in the males who see them. David Buss stated, “Telling men not to become aroused by [sexual signals] is like telling them not to experience sugar on their tongues as sweet.”[50]

Sexual attraction is just as biological as the functioning of the human liver; it cannot be socially deconstructed. Virtue, for a man, involves using the prefrontal cortex to divert his eyes, but because "willpower is like a muscle—it fatigues eventually," the most virtuous path is one of prudence.[51]

As Benjamin Wiker stated:

“Sexual immodesty not only distracts, it reduces. It reduces especially the young women to something less than they really are. Regardless of the current attempt to equalize sexuality, it has always been the case that the female’s sexuality garners a stronger attraction. Modesty acknowledges the body. It does not hide the body because it is ashamed of it; it veils the body because its sexual power is not an appropriate object of public display.” [52]

It is far better to use our reason to strategize with the long-term in mind by choosing to make decisions that will minimize exposure to neurological/physiological dynamics that will run counter to our individual good or the common good. Prudence involves outsmarting instinct rather than taking it head-on repeatedly with raw willpower.

For Women: Modulating the Signal

If shape and form are the primary drivers of sexual signaling, you have the ability to modulate that signal through your presentation.

• Managing Shape and Form: Recognize that form-fitting clothes around the waist, hips, and chest serve to highlight, amplify, accentuate, or even exaggerate anatomical signals of fertility. Modesty involves selecting garments that do not accentuate these specific anatomical signals of fecundity.
   
• Biological Honesty in Cosmetics: Re-evaluate cosmetics that mimic signs of sexual receptivity. By reducing the use of blush, lipstick, and eye shadow that mimic the physiological signs of arousal, you prevent the male brain from processing fabricated sexual availability.
   
• Strategic Presentation: Understand that cultural augmentation of sexual signals is virtually universal [53]. Prudence means choosing not to participate in the "runaway beauty competition" that exploits the biological drive to appear sexually attractive.

For Men: The Strategy of Visual Restraint

Because your brain makes a desirability decision in 200 milliseconds, virtue requires strategy.

• The 200ms Pivot: Since the hit of attraction bypasses the pre-frontal cortex, you must train your brain to divert your eyes the moment the MPOA finishes its process.
   
• Prudent Environments: It is foolish to put yourself in situations where virtuous action is pitted against neurological hardwiring. Avoid environments where sexual displays are the primary stimuli.
   
• Fleeing youthful lusts: Follow the wisdom of the Apostle Paul and flee youthful lusts (2 Timothy 2:22) rather than expecting to resist indefinitely. It’s better to outsmart instinct (prudence) rather than trying to take it head on repeatedly with raw willpower.

End Notes:

[1] David Buss, The Evolution of Desire (New York: Basic Books, 2003), 86, 92-93, 109, 168.
[2] FuseSchool, “Mating and Courtship Behavior,” YouTube, Feb 8, 2013.
[3] Jordan Peterson and Jay Kang, “Jordan Peterson VICE Interview (FULL),” YouTube, Feb 18, 2018.
[4] Benjamin Wiker, “Drawing a Hemline,” Crisis Magazine, Feb 4, 2012.
[5] Louann Brizendine, The Male Brain (New York, NY: Three Rivers Press, 2011), 52.
[6] Bovet and Raymond, PLOS ONE, April 17, 2015.
[7] M. Butovskaya et al., “Waist-to-hip ratio... in seven traditional societies,” Nature: Scientific Reports, May 09, 2017.
[8] Devendra Singh et al., “Cross-cultural consensus for waist–hip ratio,” Evolution and Human Behavior, May 01, 2010.
[9] Devendra Singh and Suwardi Luis, “Ethnic and gender consensus,” Human Nature, March 01, 1995.
[10] B. J. Dixson et al., “Female waist-to-hip ratio in China,” Current Zoology, 2010.
[11] V. Swami et al., “Men’s preferences for women’s profile WHR,” British Journal of Psychology, 2009.
[12] M. Jeanne Peterson, “No Angels in the House: The Victorian Myth,” The American Historical Review (1984).
[13] Brizendine, 72.
[14] S. Ortigue and F. Bianchi-Demicheli, “The Chronoarchitecture of Human Sexual Desire,” NeuroImage (2008).
[15] Nancy Etcoff, Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty (New York: Anchor Books, 2000), 70.
[16] Etcoff, 24, 190.
[17] Glenn Geher and Geoffrey Miller, Mating Intelligence (2008), 142.
[18] Ricardo Mondragón-Ceballos et al., International Journal of Endocrinology, Aug 17, 2015.
[19] Mondragón-Ceballos et al., International Journal of Endocrinology.
[20] Nancy Etcoff, Survival of the Prettiest, 191-193.
[21] Bovet and Raymond.
[22] M. Butovskaya et al. (2017).
[23] Devendra Singh et al. (2010).
[24] Devendra Singh and Suwardi Luis (1995).
[25] B. J. Dixson et al. (2010).
[26] V. Swami et al. (2009).
[27] Jeanne Bovet and Michel Raymond, PLOS ONE, April 17, 2015.
[28] William D Lassek and Steven J.C. Gaulin, Evolution and Human Behavior (2008), pp. 26-34.
[29] Grazyna Jasieńska et al., Proceedings B, June 22, 2004.
[30] Grazyna Jasieńska, et. al.
[31] Lizette Borreli, Medical Daily, Dec 30, 2016.
[32] Farid Pazhoohi et al., Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology (2020).
[33] David Buss, The Evolution of Desire, 110.
[34] Nancy Etcoff, Survival of the Prettiest, 243.
[35] David Buss, The Evolution of Desire, 8, 94, 96, 170.
[36] David Buss, The Evolution of Desire, 171-172.
[37] Heather Heying, “On Toxic Femininity,” Quillette, July 9, 2018.
[38] Christie Wilcox, “The Science of Makeup,” ScienceBlogs, Nov 3, 2010.
[39] Vanessa Van Edwards, The Huffington Post, Nov 23, 2013.
[40] Ian D. Stephen, “Lip colour affects perceived sex typicality,” Perception, 2010.
[41] David J. Lick et al., “Pupil dilation as a visual cue,” Evolution and Human Behavior, 2015.
[42] Stephanie Buck, “‘O’ Face,” Medium, Aug 25, 2016.
[43] Paul Ekman, BBC Studios, Feb 6, 2009.
[44] S. Ortigue and F. Bianchi-Demicheli (2008).
[45] Suzanne Brizendine, 52.
[46] David Buss, The Evolution of Desire, 104, 178.
[47] David M. Buss and Joshua D. Duntley, Aggression and Violent Behavior (2011).
[48] David M. Buss and Joshua D. Duntley.
[49] Tom M. Versluys et al., Biology Letters (2021).
[50] David Buss, The Evolution of Desire, 110.
[51] Daniel Lieberman, Patrick Bet-David, “How Dopamine Gets You Addicted,” YouTube, 2020.
[52] Benjamin Wiker, Crisis Magazine, 2012.
[53] Bobbi Low, Why Sex Matters (2015), 72.