I think Jablonski has hit the nail on the head.

Males have been selected to recognize those females who have better reproductive success potential.

Who would have thought?

I could be wrong, but I have made the casual observation that the face is usually less pigmented than other parts of the body. At least in northern Europeans, the facial skin does not appear to tan as easily as the arms, legs or back.

I had previously viewed this as an adaptation to wearing clothing in a cold climate, where in order to absorb sunlight to produce vitamin D, natural selection favored lighter facial skin since this was more likely exposed than other areas.

Now I wonder after reading this article, was the condition brought about by simply a preference for fair skin in a sexual mate since the face is the most readily observed feature of a heavily clothed person,

If there is an aesthetic preference for lighter skin, was the preference influenced by an instinctive sense that fairer skinned mates would be likely healthier and produce more viable offspring in low UV environments?

I have no reason to assume fair skin was considered aesthetically more appealing than darker skin color by our ancestors. As a data point of one, my being blond and blue-eyed doesn’t stop me from finding dark skinned, dark haired woman very attractive.

As a consequence of occupying high latitude, overcast environments reduced skin pigment was rapidly selected for to minimize Vitamin D deficiency. It seems to me this has little to do with aesthetic preference unless the aesthetic preference was also selected for to assure the fairer skinned mate was more likely chosen.

but I have made the casual observation that the face is usually less pigmented than other parts of the body.

no. page 71 of skin:

generally, the face and appendages are well-endowed, while the trunks is less so. melanocytes are most highly concentrated in the groin....

If there is an aesthetic preference for lighter skin, was the preference influenced by an instinctive sense that fairer skinned mates would be likely healthier and produce more viable offspring in low UV environments?

this has always seemed plausible to me. the only issue is that it in northern regions there really aren't dark skinned people around anymore not to be attracted to, so you'd have to make a 'pleistocene mind' sort of argument i'd think.

In North America there is a known prediliction (albeit rare) for black infants to get rickets during the winter months, due to a lack of sun exposure.

How bizarre. So the reason there are more darkheads in the population is because they are more reproductive?

If a blonde is fairest of them all, shouldnt there be more blondes?

Give me a choice between a hipless, fair-skinned, faceless Chinese girl and a swarthy, dark haired hip swaying Latina, hey guess who Id pick to mate with?

Lets stop imagining whatever happened in the past, lets take a poll NOW. Anybody?

In North America there is a known prediliction (albeit rare) for black infants to get rickets during the winter months, due to a lack of sun exposure.

same issue with brownz in britain. especially ladies that walk around in black garbage bags all day.

Dienekes presents some values, and suggests that "In these data points it looks to me that Iranians and Kurds have the highest sexual dimorphism." I don't know what to make of that.

It can be explained easily if sexual dimorphism acts on only a subset of the total number of skin-color genes. In very light-skinned people those genes are non-functioning, so there is nothing to act on. In very dark-skinned people the effect of those genes could have less of an impact on phenotype because of non-sexually-dimorphic genes.

It can be explained easily if sexual dimorphism acts on only a subset of the total number of skin-color genes.

sure. my point is that sex. dim. is a slow process, so i am skeptical that it could have emerged in the mid latitudes and stabilized easily. perhaps what you are getting at is that it only manifests in the mid latitudes cuz of the variation on the loci....

perhaps what you are getting at is that it only manifests in the mid latitudes cuz of the variation on the loci....

Yes. If I understand you correctly, it's there in very dark skinned people, just not visible.

Give me a choice between a hipless, fair-skinned, faceless Chinese girl and a swarthy, dark haired hip swaying Latina, hey guess who Id pick to mate with?

You don't have to ask me.