We Call It Love

It is tempting to believe that love is mysterious, spontaneous, and purely emotional and spiritual . Yet beneath this poetry called romance there exists something far more mechanical, a brain, a brain that is  quietly evaluating signals of "attractiveness".

Human beings often choose partners who are considered attractive ,romantically attractive, Not “attractive romantically,” but attractive, romantically. In other words, attraction precedes romance rather than emerging from it.

Thinking about this inevitably brings to my mind "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins(one of the few papers on evolutionary psychology). The book famously argues that genes propagate themselves by influencing behaviors that increase reproductive success. From this perspective, humans are not simply searching for love; we are essentially searching for mates, even if that search is disguised under the of pursuit of the desire to be loved.

Perhaps this explains why people often gravitate toward those who are conventionally attractive than just someone who is a regular looking guy . Our standards of beauty, particularly in a globalized media landscape, have been heavily shaped by the ideals of a white man. These standards subtly influence who appears desirable and who fades into the background as “just a regular individual.”

Strip away the cultural language, and the uncomfortable possibility emerges, we are still, in many ways, evolved and somewhat  highly sophisticated monkey brains.

Attraction: Biological or Cultural 

Calling attraction purely biological would be overly reductionist. Many would argue that attraction is primarily a cultural construct, shaped by media, art, and social norms.

Yet calling it purely cultural is reductionist, again.

Attraction is perhaps better understood as a cultural construct driven by biological preferences. Biology provides the raw signals like symmetry, youth, vitality meanwhile culture exaggerates and stylizes them.

Across different civilizations, we repeatedly see the same phenomenon, even when depicting gods or sacred figures, cultures gravitate toward aesthetically idealized forms.

Krishna                                                

Krishna has traditionally been depicted with blue skin in many ancient artworks. The color is widely interpreted as symbolic, representing divinity, transcendence, or cosmic vastness.

However, modern adaptations of the Mahabharata increasingly portray Krishna in contemporary aesthetic terms: muscular, sharply contoured, fairer-skinned, and visually aligned with the modern cinematic hero.

Even divine figures slowly begin to resemble contemporary ideals of beauty.

      

Jesus Christ

Jesus Christ who was historically a Middle Eastern man. Yet many artistic traditions (particularly in Europe) have portrayed him with lighter skin and sometimes blond or light brown hair.

These depictions largely reflected the cultural norms of the societies producing the artwork. In this way, holiness itself was often imagined through a face that conformed to familiar standards of beauty. Critics frequently interpret this phenomenon as a form of cultural or visual whitewashing.

Zeus

Zeus and other Greek gods were sculpted with symmetrical faces, muscular definition, and idealized proportions.

In classical Greek art, divinity and physical perfection became nearly indistinguishable. Strength, symmetry, and beauty were not merely aesthetic qualities—they were visual signals of power and transcendence.  

Shiva

Even figures like Shiva, meant to transcend worldly desire are rarely depicted as physically ordinary. A god who meditates in cremation grounds and renounces material attachment, is portrayed with a powerful, composed body with broad-shouldered, symmetrical, almost serene in its strength. 

The symbolism probably emphasizes detachment from the physical world, yet the visual language still gravitates toward vitality and balance.

 Even when cultures attempt to depict transcendence beyond desire, they often cannot fully escape the aesthetic grammar shaped by it.

Biology Beneath Culture

Looking at all the above examples , we notice something very important.

Cultural ideals magnify some particular biological preferences.

Traits like symmetry, youth, and strength have deep evolutionary roots. Culture then transforms these signals into myths, heroes, and divine imagery. The result is a never ending feedback loop, biology informs culture, and culture reinforces biology.

Perhaps the real question is not whether attraction is biological or cultural.

The more interesting question might be whether culture itself is partially, if not entirely.... biological?

Attractive Dates Unattractive Fallacy

One may argue that   "attractive people  date "not conventionally attractive people" all the time ,  but the fact they have made binaries and classified people into these subgroups "attractive" and "unattractive" the argument itself becomes bogus. The elephant in the room is not whether exceptions exist. It is whether the categories themselves are biologically inevitable, socially constructed, or a mix  of both.

Conclusion

Love is often spoken about as if it were a purely emotional or spiritual phenomenon, something detached from the mechanics of biology or the pressures of culture. Yet the patterns around us suggest something way more complicated. Our preferences may begin in evolutionary signals like symmetry, health, vitality, but cultures then interprets, exaggerates, and aestheticizes those signals into ideals of beauty.

Over time these ideals become embedded in mythology, religion, art, and modern media. Gods are sculpted with perfect bodies, sacred figures acquire familiar features, and heroes slowly begin to resemble the aesthetic standards than what a regular individual looks in that era . What begins as a biological tendency becomes a cultural narrative, and eventually feels natural enough to pass unquestioned by everyone or anyone.

Perhaps love itself exists somewhere in that intersection. Not very biological, not very cultural, but a continuous negotiation between our instincts and imagination. We call it love, but beneath this beautiful poetry there could be a quiet dialogue between our evolutionary past and the stories our cultures tell about beauty, desire, and worth.