One of the strongest theories is the so-called "selfish gene". This theory has it that human beings (as well as animals and plants) will make it a priority to perpetuate their own genetic material rather than that of others. For men, this means spreading your spermatozoa as widely as possible and selecting the most fertile females. For women, it means finding a good provider and hanging on to him, in order to raise as many children as possible ? something which is difficult to do if you don't have a reliable and faithful spouse to bring home the bacon while you're elbow deep in nappies.

This scenario has, of course, come in for a lot of criticism, especially from those in the profession who regard it as nothing more than a pseudo-scientific justification for the sexist status quo. After all, as someone said in the movies (was it Lauren Bacall in "The African Queen"?) ? "Nature is what we are supposed to rise above!"

Now an evolutionary psychologist is busy putting cats among some of these rather self-satisfied establishment pigeons. He's Doctor George Fieldman, from Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College in the UK. Research supervised by Fieldman and reported in New Scientist used images of what they call "aging beauty". They took photographs of women and showed them to a group of men who rated them in terms of attractiveness. One 36-year-old woman (aging?? Puh-lease!) was generally rated as highly attractive by these men. This photo was then shown to a separate group of males, along with photos of women ranging from 20 to 45 years who had been rated as less attractive. The subjects for the study responded on the Internet, where the photos and rating scales were posted.

This is where it gets interesting. The men were separated into smaller groups. Some were told that the beauty was 45, others 41, and a third group had her actual age, 36. The men were asked which of the women they would select as a long-term partner. Regardless of the age of the men, nearly all candidates chose the "aging beauty" over her younger, presumably more fertile, but less conventionally attractive competition ? even despite the fact they may have believed she was 45 years old!

This is definitely food for thought. What is going on here? Have genes suddenly become recklessly unselfish?

As a good evolutionist, Dr Fieldman isn't to be budged from his biological explanation. Men choose prettier women even if they are older, he told BBC Online, because their children will be more attractive, which will help them do better in life and get ahead. (This assumption is true, and is supported by research studies that have demonstrated the unfair advantages held by attractive individuals right from early childhood through to the top of the career ladder). He backs up his argument by referring to the phenomenon of women being whistled at as they walk past building sites. "If you think of the kind of women that men on a building site may wolf whistle at, they tend to wolf whistle at beautiful women. They won't whistle at a perfectly healthy and fecund 20 year old. The younger and plainer women will give them more children, but the fact that they're going for the ageing beauty is indicative that beauty is more important at some level".

Well, hey. What would we do without psychological research, one wonders? Clearly, Dr Fieldman hasn't been hanging around building sites much, at least not as a woman, or he'd know that wolf whistling is about giving women, and more importantly your mates, a message about what a big man you are, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the serious and expensive business of having babies. (Even builders' mates know that these days, spreading your spermatozoa around can lead to some pricey paternity suits). Doesn't matter if you're 20 or 50, these chaps can spare a whistle for you, and the more embarrassed you are, the better from their point of view.

And where are these attractive children of 45-year-old women, anyway? There is a trend for women to have children later in life and to leave child bearing later, but a man who partners a gorgeous 45 year old in the hope that she will bear him even one "ubermensch" child has got to be an incurable optimist. Did anyone ask the "older women" what they think about being chosen for their genes? There are probably not that many gorgeous older women floating about anyway, since they were presumably gorgeous as young women too ? and this study didn't propose a contest between a young beauty and an old one. So for all we know the youthful beauties are probably still top of the food chain.

One doesn't know whether to be pleased by the apparent lack of prejudice against advancing years that this research uncovers, or depressed that the "beauty stereotype" is now powerful enough to overcome even biological imperatives and previously entrenched ageist stereotypes that were applied to women more than to men. Perhaps men have grown up enough to be confident around older women? Or is it just that they want a status symbol and a beauty, even a middle-aged one, provides that? Are trophy wives now expected to be rich, experienced and intelligent as well as beautiful? Do psychologists really think that the ratings response of men to photographs will be translated into real-life behaviour in the choosing of a mate?

It does seem to be true that in Hollywood (insofar as that can be applied to "normal" life), older women are doing rather well at the moment. A decade or more ago, an actress was washed up after about thirty; now they're sailing on, still gorgeous and playing plum, even sexy roles into their fifties. We are seeing women in the prime of life as well as nubile young starlets, which has to be good ? even if they are all "beauties" according to a fairly narrow ideal of feminine beauty.

Young wives concerned that their husbands may be pulled away from their homes (presumably homes loud with the infant yells of the next generation) may or may not be relieved to hear that Dr Fieldman, while saying that "one can be led from one's genes" in terms of sexual behaviour (which is what evolutionary psychologists always say), hastens to add "that's not an excuse". Phew. What a relief ? social norms of behaviour are still going to prevail regardless of the invisible hand of evolution at work, apparently.

What do you think, dear readers? Is the "older woman" now more of a danger to marriages than the "younger woman"? Do our genes lead us when it comes to choosing partners, or does realism set in at some point? Whatever you might think, ultimately about this type of research, it certainly does raise some interesting questions! For more, take a look at

BBC online

Bucks Chilterns?you want the ASSH faculty web page