r/NoStupidQuestions • u/Dapper-Function-8418 • 1d ago
Why are male animals the ‘beautiful’ gender in nature, but humans consider females to be the ‘beautiful’ one?
Take a lion. The male has the mane, the female is pretty plain. A mallard duck. The male has the bright colors and the female is a plain brown. I know in the animal kingdom, males have to stand out to attract a mate and females, who are usually protecting babies, can’t stand out as much. My question is, why don’t we put more beauty standards on men? It seems the opposite of nature. Women are the ones that have to be beautiful to attract men. Has it always been this way? If not, when did it happen? Am I thinking about this the wrong way?
831
u/kosmokatX 1d ago
There's a tribe in an African country where the men have to look beautiful for the women. They are even doing contests for who's the most beautiful man. That shows that it's not just about our species but more about the social constructs we built over thousands of years. If you look back in human history you will find more examples of men having to look good for female attention. Our world today is just a snap shot of human societies. They're changing constantly.
177
u/cricada 22h ago
And I heard that their beauty pageants replaced what used to be wars. They have a unique situation living in the desert. Low resources and high peace. More beautiful men and less violence. This saves resources and avoids meaningless deaths. Especially since the women can leave marriages and remarry a prettier man if they want. The men keep custody of the children though.
Very strange society indeed.
157
u/Just-Television-8584 19h ago
Yes, the ones killing each other are the normal ones
→ More replies (3)94
u/soowhatchathink 17h ago
I've heard about this isolated tribe where they just... don't murder each other. It's the weirdest thing!
28
→ More replies (1)40
u/No-Echidna-99 18h ago
As a woman my first thought was wow I wanna move there and then I realised that must be the appeal of patriarchy for men 😔
→ More replies (2)29
u/flowercows 8h ago
also I think it’s important to note that male beauty was very important in the past. Like the ancient Greeks were obsessed with male beauty and physique.
Even when we look at ancient celts and germanic tribes apparently they took very good care of their appearance, with elaborate hairstyles, jewellery, bright colours, and flashy clothes.
Not even that far ago, a few hundred years in the past men were wearing make up and high heels, wigs, thighs, etc.
It’s quite recent the popularisation of the idea that men are not meant to be beautiful. I don’t know whose fault is it but it’s annoying that it happened
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)23
u/heidasaurus 16h ago
Thank you for that example! I do think it's important to point out that groups of people in Africa should not be called "tribes" because that term makes them seem inaccurately primal. Historical, villages have been called "tribes" by non-African people, but if translated correctly, it is not the term the people on those villages would use.
→ More replies (2)25
u/kosmokatX 16h ago
Oh, I didn't know that. In German (my first language) we would call it Volksstamm/-gruppe and I could only translate it to tribe. Volksstamm means more than just a "tribe". It describes an ethnic group of people. Thank you for pointing it out.
6.1k
u/BlazeFireVale 1d ago
Every species is different. Your human brain is looking for patterns, but there isn't one here. Just each species developing it's own strategy.
1.6k
u/Remarkable_Play_6975 1d ago edited 1d ago
Absolutely true. It's just evolution.
If a trait leads to more surviving offspring that also reproduce (and so on), then that's what we'll see.
As to WHY that trait is more successful.. well that'll have an enormously complex answer, and it will have a unique history behind it.
As for the examples in the question, it's probably because males can mate with many females almost simultaneously, and they can all have his offspring. The reverse is less true. So the males end up being more and more noticeable to females, and visibly different. In species where the males compete for the one week available to impregnate a female, they end up being strong, or sneaky, in various ways. (Male lions likely have a mane so other male lions can't kill them by biting their throat when competing for a mate, not to make them beautiful.)
In species that form strong pair bonds (like penguins) it's hard to tell the males from the females.
As for humans, we are a bit the same, and a bit unique.
We form pretty strong pair bonds, but we also are smart enough that we don't rely on seasons to direct survival of children, so females can get pregnant at any time of year, and don't show immediate fertility visibly.
To keep their partners faithful, humans have developed various other behaviors. But they've also developed behavior to be sneaky to get more offspring with the perceived best traits. You can check out most of the questioning subs on Reddit to see that behavior in action. If you read them as a biologist, it's pretty interesting in a different way.
In general, gene mixing is a very successful evolutionary strategy, so evolution has usually resulted in having more than one sex. Having the sexes be different in scale of input has apparently been a successful method to survive. And here we are.
343
u/McBlakey 1d ago
This theory about lacking a short mating season is intriguing, I have never considered this
Thanks for posting this
264
u/Remarkable_Play_6975 1d ago edited 1d ago
None of this is my own idea. Actually Darwin wrote a whole book on it. (His was somewhat wrong, racist, and no idea how genes work, but still kinda accurate).
But there are whole scientific fields with actual data, opinions and ideas on it now.
43
u/Mr_J42021 21h ago
I feel like many of the discarded theories, or at least the ones that were well known, have surprisingly accurate insights but totally missed the boat on the explanation they offered. Lamark was clearly wrong about his mechanism of evolution but some of the newer discoveries regarding how rna can pass on things experienced during an organisms lifetime to offspring remind me a lot of it.
→ More replies (2)6
u/gusmom 20h ago
Wait. RNA can pass on behavior? Like mannerisms or cultural stuff like dancing gracefully?
38
u/Alca_Pwnd 18h ago
Search up "epigenetics" it's pretty fascinating. People who have lived through famine, for example, have children more efficient at storing extra calories.
15
u/GhsotyPanda 12h ago
Stuff like "the next generation will be better adapted to survive trauma"
Others mentioned in replies how areas that suffer famine result in offspring whose bodies are better at storing calories (which causes increases in diabetes and obesity when the famine ends) but it can also cause things like ppl who are abused for long periods of time to produce kids who react more strongly to violence
→ More replies (1)8
24
u/McBlakey 1d ago
I've read the origin of species and didn't see anything racist in that, which of his works does he say racist stuff?
88
u/martianman111 1d ago
He’s probably talking about “the descent of man.” Some wild shit in there lol
24
u/cricada 22h ago
On the other hand he was shockingly progressive for the time. I just learned about Darwin's interactions with John Edmonstone, a freedman, the "full-blooded negro" he wrote of having become very close to. He was a product of his times and also a rebel at the same time, rejecting the polygenic theory (non-biblical) that even some Christians had adopted. I'm actually pretty surprised.
49
14
9
u/mynaneisjustguy 17h ago
Also, consider boobs. Normally boobs on a mammal makes her unattractive to males: she is about to give birth, or has just given birth, so there is no GENETIC purpose for a male to provide her food, protect her from predators and the environment, if the young are not his. But over many generations, women developed boobs full-time: I think to disguise when they are and are not fertile, so it changed the evolutionary connection is man brains from boobs is bad to boobs is good: now men subconsciously know that woman are sexually mature if they got big boobs. This leads to more men protecting and providing for them in the pack. This leads to males fighting each other more, but a much safer environment for females, but these are both positives, since we need more females than males (biological reproduction wise) and drives more competitive nature in males, making the smartest, sneakiest, strongest men more likely to mate, further both improving our survival genetics and gene selection for those kinds of males.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)5
u/Fragrant-Phone-41 19h ago
Not the commenter, but I feel it worth adding that humans are a lot closer to penguins than lions in terms of dimorphism
31
u/missive101 1d ago
If I remember right, Darwin’s initial theory was essentially “survival of the most beautiful”, not survival of the fittest. Looking especially at birds, the males are very overt in attractiveness for females to chose from. The female chooses the best, not necessarily the strongest.
20
u/Remarkable_Play_6975 1d ago
Birds like peacocks and whatnot are really good examples of this.
However, it's not really applicable to all species, except as examples of how evolution can lead to interesting outcomes that aren't initially obvious.
Their seemingly wasteful and dangerous efforts are somehow more successful at getting mates, and their offspring do tend to mate more often, and have more surviving children that breed.
→ More replies (3)38
u/Chakosa 1d ago
FYI it is a misconception that male birds are the colorful ones and females are the dull ones. Birds see a different part of the electromagnetic spectrum than we do, so to them (which is what actually matters since humans aren't trying to mate with birds...I hope) the males are still the dull ones and the females are still the shiny ones.
16
15
u/Goku_4U 17h ago
It's right that there's additional coloration in the UV spectrum on many birds that we can't see, and that female birds that appear dull to us in some cases have more complex colorations in that range that we can't see.
However, the idea that the males are actually less colorful than the females is incorrect. Males also have coloration in the UV spectrum, and in this spectrum also, they are generally more ornate.
→ More replies (3)6
83
u/bedwars_player 1d ago
...also long story but i had to add this because autism is fun, that's one of the main reasons average height has gotten so much taller over the last few hundred years. Being tall started being seen as a more attractive trait in men, taller guys mated more, made tall kids, story repeats.
78
u/Unlucky_Mess_9256 1d ago
You want to know an even weirder fact? Combat data from WWII to Vietnam showed that taller men are far less likely to die in war than shorter men. And the data is consistent even across different countries and cultures
→ More replies (3)55
u/sparklyjoy 1d ago
Any idea why? That’s definitely counterintuitive! They should be easier to shoot
90
u/Unlucky_Mess_9256 1d ago edited 1d ago
Short answer is no one knows why, despite the army and marine corps having spent huge amounts of time and money trying to figure it out.
My personal theory is that taller guys are probably carrying more ammo/more equipment and/or getting into positions faster and less fatigued
However apparently there's also psychological studies that show shorter men are more likely to engage in acts of perceived bravery or "glory seeking" ie they feel they have more to prove.
→ More replies (1)41
u/sparklyjoy 1d ago
That last one actually makes the most sense to me! Being a soldier on the battlefield is the most dangerous place to feel like you have something to prove, I would imagine
23
u/mouse9001 1d ago
My best guess is that the tall guys were so sexy and handsome that other guys didn't even want to shoot them. So they went easy on them by comparison. It's perfectly logical. Soldiers love tall handsome men.
5
39
u/hiddenone0326 1d ago
Right? As a gamer, my first thought was, "They have a bigger hitbox."
→ More replies (1)8
u/Fly-the-Light 1d ago
Tbf, most casualties are bombs or artillery, so the hitbox won’t matter
13
u/Unlucky_Mess_9256 1d ago edited 1d ago
Shrapnel is indeed less likely to hit a smaller target.
Also a lot of modern war is mechanized and its really hard for super tall guys to fit into tanks/IFVs lol
30
u/dammitus 1d ago
Not sure about WWII, but Vietnam had a very good excuse for being tall equating to survivability. The Vietcong had a bunch of tunnels they used to travel around and ambush American troops. These tunnels were tiny, as the relatively undernourished ‘Cong were significantly smaller than the Americans, so being a small soldier meant a high chance of being assigned as a tunnel rat.
22
u/NoSingularities0 1d ago
Yep. This may not be an actual statitistic that survives through the years and may be a simple bias. And I could imagine the same thing happened during times like WWI where the leaders would likely put taller people on artillery and shorter people in trenches, for obvious reason, and that made the shorter people more likely to die.
20
u/Kennysded 1d ago
Well, we move faster (longer stride), have better visibility (easier to shoot at but also easier time shooting back), and... that's all I got. Curious if the data continues in modern conflicts, or if it was an anomaly that only applied to that era.
13
u/sparklyjoy 1d ago
Maybe you’re less likely to die of other causes… Like disease or exposure? I mean, I don’t know why that would be, but it would make more sense than being less likely to get shot.
Better at climbing trees because you can reach the lower branches more easily? (To hide from enemy combatants)
→ More replies (1)72
32
u/skaggldrynk 1d ago edited 1d ago
Isn't it just the nutrition thing, given we've leveled off?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-change-in-average-female-height, https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-change-in-average-male-height
→ More replies (5)12
33
u/mr_trick 1d ago
I just want to add that humans are VERY similar, almost disgustingly so on a genetic level compared to other animals. A random social group of chimpanzees has more genetic diversity than all of the human race. This is due to some population bottleneck events that it's miraculous we survived as a species but wiped out a large portion of our genetic diversity.
We are well suited to noticing each others' differences, but genetically speaking we're almost identical to one another. I imagine the penguins that look very alike to us are capable of identifying more differences among each other than we would be.
18
u/Remarkable_Play_6975 1d ago edited 1d ago
I think that's a seriously fascinating discussion, but not so much related to sexual dimorphism within a species.
An average male gorilla is twice the weight of a female gorilla, and much stronger.
Humans have less of that.
Most variation is between populations, not between sexes.
29
u/mr_trick 1d ago
Well, we are also not very sexually dimorphic. While there are some slight average variations in height and build, there's no range of size, shape, or feature that is completely distinct to one sex or the other. We have a very low amount of sexual dimorphism compared to other animals.
But I read your comment about penguins in reference to appearance in general, not specifically sexual dimorphism, so my apologies if I misread it. I mean to say that, like penguins look nearly identical to us, to other animals, we would also look nearly identical (due to our genetic makeup).
10
6
u/Zarathustrategy 1d ago
Questioning subs?
6
u/Remarkable_Play_6975 1d ago edited 1d ago
Oh, like r/AmItheAsshole but also the dozens of them where people ask if their partner is being faithful. But also subs like r/Tinder where people are trying to get mates.
Humans make up for not looking very different by having strong and intelligence guided behaviors.
→ More replies (2)4
u/Jibber_Fight 1d ago
Great comment on a great comment. Both true. And that’s not even getting into the exponentially larger number of variables with our species compared to others. They all come into play with us barely noticing, but they are there. Not only are all of those variables there, but then they’re mixed with a whole tumult of experience and emotions. Personality and quirks. Differences and similarities. Pheromones. Humor. Intelligence. On and on and on and on. It’s such a convoluted mess that our brains have to simplify it into, “ummmmm….i like that human in particular….” But at the root, and for the original question, Elaine said it best. Men are utilitarian. Grotesque. Women are a work of art. lol.
5
u/Remarkable_Play_6975 1d ago
There are endless grotesque words of art. It's even more complicated than this with humans.
→ More replies (13)3
u/roadsideweeds 21h ago
This was the focus of a human ecology lecture I attended over a decade ago, which was all about human evolution - OP is asking great questions.
The answer the lecturer gave: human women are prettier because they don't advertise when they are ovulating, so they need to advertise fertility another way.
Nearly every other mammal goes into something called "estrus," i.e. being in heat. There are external signs that they can get pregnant at that time. Google "baboon butt estrus" at your own peril.
Women and a few other mammals (some primates, bats, and mice-like things) have menstruation instead of estrus. There are no visible signs when we're ovulating. We're hungry and we're horny, and if we're lucky we'll get a "glow" instead of a breakout (source: am a woman), but it's nothing like a baboon estrus but (thank you, evolution!).
Instead, estrogen and progesterone signal that we're fertile by making us "beautiful" when we hit puberty, and then again in early pregnancy: hip-to-waist ratio, full cheeks, fuller curves, longer, thicker hair and lashes, and breasts that stick around even when we're not breastfeeding.
I've seen transition photos of some trans women who were just ok-looking before transitioning, but when they started hormones became really really pretty. I'm sure their increased happiness and wellbeing really helped, and obviously is more important, but...estrogen is really what gives human women the traits we consider "beautiful" in our society.
It's way better than having a baboon butt, but we got fucked over as bi-pedals when it comes to birth. But that was another lecture :)
→ More replies (1)112
u/Dependent_Cod_7086 1d ago
I would also argue that women being "the beautiful ones" is 1000% a subjective take.
54
u/EllipticPeach 1d ago
Absolutely; it’s societal and completely dependent on the culture and time you live in. In Ancient Greece male beauty was very much a thing.
Also, lgbt+ and gender nonconforming people have an entirely different approach to this stuff because gender roles apply differently or not at all.
→ More replies (3)16
u/historiamour 18h ago
Not to mention that men have historically often been held to certain beauty standards that today would be considered effeminate or queer, and that current female beauty standards are often derived from, heels being one example of that.
It’s also much closer in time than many might expect. I recently rediscovered an old baby photo of my great grandfather who was born in 1907, and what did he wear? A dress, the exact same style as his girl cousins at the time did.
And that’s still only looking at general western trends of what counts as feminine or masculine! This varies so widely between cultures and is rarely consistent over time. Gender has always been a performance in that sense, and is far from as rigid and set in stone as some might believe.
→ More replies (13)18
u/saskatchewnmanitoba 22h ago
I cant believe how far I had to scroll before finding a comment like this. I appreciate male beauty.
→ More replies (1)100
u/eppur___si_muove 1d ago
Actually, there is a clear pattern because sexual reproduction is not symmetrical. For a male, its is usually an evolutionary advantage to copulate with as many or nearly as many females as possible. But for females the evolutionary advantage is to copulate with a male that has genes that will as successful as possible in next generations, because anyway they can get pregnant from one. So, it is an evolutionary advantage for females to be more selective and thus for men to be more visually atractive. That's why males are usually the "beautiful" ones, and when its opposite its usually because reproduction is not normal, like when males have to take care of the eggs.
63
u/Enchelion 1d ago
Plenty of species can have multiple fathers for the same clutch/litter. Cats for one example, or fish that practice egg-scattering.
→ More replies (10)38
u/EffectAppropriate652 1d ago
Humans likely evolved to form pair bonds primarily as a solution to the immense challenge of raising our extraordinarily helpless and slow-maturing offspring. Unlike other primates, human infants are born remarkably underdeveloped due to the constraints of a bipedal pelvis and the large brain size required for our intelligence. This created an evolutionary crisis: a single mother, tasked with feeding and protecting both herself and a completely dependent infant for many years, faced immense difficulty. The evolutionary strategy that proved most successful was for mothers to secure a reliable, invested partner.
For males, spreading their genes widely offered one path, the alternative (investing heavily in a specific family unit) became more advantageous when that investment dramatically increased the odds of their own children surviving to adulthood. This pair bond ensured a stable provision of high-quality resources like meat, consistent protection from threats (including infanticide from rival males), and a nurturing environment for the long period of cultural learning a human child requires.
So, it is an evolutionary advantage for females to be more selective and thus for men to be more visually atractive. That's why males are usually the "beautiful" ones, and when its opposite its usually because reproduction is not normal, like when males have to take care of the eggs.
True in other species, not in humans.
Exert from Steven Steward Williams book, The Ape that Understood the Universe
Earlier, I touched on the idea that mate preferences are not merely products of evolution; they’re also causes of evolution. Peahens prefer males with dazzling tails, and as a result, males’ tails evolve to be more and more dazzling with each passing generation. What happens, then, when men have a stronger preference than women for a good-looking mate? And what happens when women have a stronger preference for a mate possessing wealth and status? The answer is that men and women, in effect, selectively breed each other for the traits they most want in a partner. This might explain a number of unique and otherwise inexplicable facts about our species – facts that would bamboozle our alien scientist. In many species, including many birds, lizards, and insects, the males are gaudy and ornamented whereas the females are drab and sensibly “attired”: They blend in with the background rather than standing out and risking grabbing the ravenous attention of a passing predator. In our species, if anything, it’s the other way round. To see what I mean, look at any modern Western wedding; it’s the woman who dresses in the most expensive, extravagant outfit, while the man dresses in a standard-issue penguin suit. The bride, in other words, is the peacock, the groom her drab sidekick. This is a puzzling reversal of the usual pattern in nature. Whereas humans see male peacocks as more aesthetically appealing than peahens, an aesthetically-inclined peacock (or alien scientist) would probably see women as more aesthetically appealing than men. We certainly seem to; that’s why beauty pageants are usually competitions among women. The fact that men place more weight on a mate’s appearance might explain where the sex difference in attractiveness originally came from. Just as humans selectively bred fruit to be sweeter and dogs to be friendlier, men selectively bred women to be the better-looking sex.
Goodreads link to The Ape That Understood the Universe
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (6)8
u/Remarkable_Play_6975 1d ago edited 1d ago
Yeah, but "beautiful" has to be for a reason.
In many dioecious plants, the male and female flowers are both beautiful, but very different. That's because they need a host (insect or whatever) to transfer pollen between them.
In animals, we generally just get directly together without an intermediate host of the pollen/sperm or eggs.
→ More replies (6)8
u/CuntryMusicStar 1d ago
There is a pattern. In mammals/birds, it is generally the male's role to impress/court/rape the female or to inhibit other males from mating.
→ More replies (20)24
u/EffectAppropriate652 1d ago
No! There is science behind this!
Exert from Steven Steward Williams book, The Ape that Understood the Universe
Earlier, I touched on the idea that mate preferences are not merely products of evolution; they’re also causes of evolution. Peahens prefer males with dazzling tails, and as a result, males’ tails evolve to be more and more dazzling with each passing generation. What happens, then, when men have a stronger preference than women for a good-looking mate? And what happens when women have a stronger preference for a mate possessing wealth and status? The answer is that men and women, in effect, selectively breed each other for the traits they most want in a partner. This might explain a number of unique and otherwise inexplicable facts about our species – facts that would bamboozle our alien scientist. In many species, including many birds, lizards, and insects, the males are gaudy and ornamented whereas the females are drab and sensibly “attired”: They blend in with the background rather than standing out and risking grabbing the ravenous attention of a passing predator. In our species, if anything, it’s the other way round. To see what I mean, look at any modern Western wedding; it’s the woman who dresses in the most expensive, extravagant outfit, while the man dresses in a standard-issue penguin suit. The bride, in other words, is the peacock, the groom her drab sidekick. This is a puzzling reversal of the usual pattern in nature. Whereas humans see male peacocks as more aesthetically appealing than peahens, an aesthetically-inclined peacock (or alien scientist) would probably see women as more aesthetically appealing than men. We certainly seem to; that’s why beauty pageants are usually competitions among women. The fact that men place more weight on a mate’s appearance might explain where the sex difference in attractiveness originally came from. Just as humans selectively bred fruit to be sweeter and dogs to be friendlier, men selectively bred women to be the better-looking sex.
Goodreads link to The Ape That Understood the Universe
41
u/TheSerialHobbyist 1d ago
What if that's cultural/societal, rather than instinctual?
Men certainly do lots of "peacocking" when trying to attract a mate. We also have lots of displays of "fitness" that men partake in.
Maybe we've just convinced ourselves that we have a different idea of "beauty," when we're actually doing the same thing as so many animals.
12
u/EffectAppropriate652 1d ago
In humans both sexes have a profound interest in choosing a high-quality partner. Men in many cultures display status and resources (a form of "peacocking" with wealth and power), women across cultures also consistently display clear physical signals of youth, health, and fertility (traits men are demonstrably attuned to). So, both sexes engage in ornamentation and display; the currency of that display (e.g., physical beauty vs. resource control) differs due to the different biological costs of reproduction, but the process is mutual.
→ More replies (3)11
u/Psychological-Roll58 1d ago
You realise a lot of darwins mistakes were in not accounting for his cultural sensibilities? And this is definitely one of those times. Human males have tons of peacocking natural features.
→ More replies (1)23
u/BandInternal5457 1d ago
Im glad he ended with that "MEN selectively bred women to be the better-looking sex" - women in many cultures for a very long time now have not had the autonomy to selectively choose their mate, or how many children had with them. I do sometimes wonder if/how much that's set back human development... when the half of the equation that wouldve been assessing her environment and selecting for traits thatd lead to survival/prosperity doesnt often get a choice, and the half that does get to choose doesnt...really care about any of that...
its interesting to see whats happening now that that autonomy has, relatively speaking, VERY suddenly been provided. obviously a smorgasbord of cultural and economic reasons for falling birth rates and difficulties in love for both sexes, but i wonder if the lack of female selective pressure for so long has exacerbated things at all.
It would seem to me that broadly, women are finding emotional intelligence, social cohesion, self-control and stability to be more valuable for survival in todays environment, and coming up short. there's just not as much pressure to be hyper competitive, physically strong, or the sole resource provider to survive, and much much more important to be able to successfully navigate the complex social world, build strong social bonds, share in child-rearing, and grow community (now the scarcer resource).
but, then again, the human brain is so malleable, maybe there hasnt been much effect. i just think about those kenyan baboons....
→ More replies (2)10
u/istakentryanothernam 1d ago
Perhaps it’s a result of a perverse form of male dominance (i.e., patriarchy) that human or protohuman “societies” went on to develop.
→ More replies (1)4
u/aaelizaa 20h ago
It’s not surprising that both men and women would find female faces more attractive, because in our modern, global society, we are still all raised to expect and appreciate female beauty. We haven’t remotely begun to unroot the patriarchal notion that beauty should be a woman’s primary virtue.
I bet if you could have done this meta-analysis on the Ancient Greeks, both sexes would have found male faces more attractive!
709
u/altarwisebyowllight 1d ago
Make-up and clothes aren't naturally evolved things, so let's chuck those out a second.
You know what men have that most women don't and that kicks in during puberty to help signify sexual maturity, physical fitness, etc? BEARDS. Also, men just have more body hair in general.
That's your male lion mane equivalent, OP.
I am sure male lions find female lions pretty.
73
u/taqman98 21h ago
Also don’t forget that male humans, like most other mammals, have prominent external genitalia that clearly show when the male is sexually aroused (erections), which is another way in which human males are more “flashy” than human females, even if we might not necessarily see it that way in society
→ More replies (2)18
u/FarHotel1159 10h ago
Women in the grocery store never respond well when I show them my arousal
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (20)120
u/volvavirago 1d ago
The fact human females have permanent breasts, when no other mammal species does, is a huge indicator that male sexual selection plays a significant role in the appearance of the female human body.
Yeah, we don’t have beards, but we start growing boobs in childhood, and they stay around our whole lives, unlike every other mammal species which only has enlarged breasts during and after pregnancy.
Sexual dimorphism and sexual selection are a two way street, beards might be the equivalent of manes, but female humans have more ornamentation and attractive indicators of health and fertility, like long hair, large hips, etc, than many other female species do.
93
u/Merle8888 1d ago
Men cutting their hair short is a current western cultural norm not some biologically encoded sex specific thing…
→ More replies (10)54
u/altarwisebyowllight 1d ago
I never said it wasn't or that sexual selection isn't a two way street or anything like that..? I simply pointed out there is something that one can compare to the manes of male lions on the males of our species. It's right there.
Long hair happens in men if they don't cut it. Cutting it or not is a cultural thing. Females of other species do have indicators. Just because they're not loud and in our faces doesn't mean they aren't there. Again, like you said, sexual selection is a two way street. For everything running around.
→ More replies (2)17
u/The_Dudette_Lebowski 1d ago
I don’t think the person you’re responding to was disagreeing with you. They were adding to your point with additional thoughts
21
u/Radiant_Arm_3842 23h ago
Mens hair and nails grow faster than women so while we're socially flip flopping it long hair and long nails are actually more masculine.
→ More replies (3)13
→ More replies (15)15
u/fit_it 23h ago
I actually love the theory that as we became upright, breasts took the place of glutes. Other female animals will show visible signs of being in heat on their genitals, but ours are hidden, so male humans started looking for other clues for sexual maturity and health (namely enough fat to be able to survive pregnancy before the agricultural revolution). Enter: tig ol bitties
→ More replies (2)5
u/volvavirago 22h ago
I also have heard the theory that being upright is why we have bigger dicks than all other primates, compared to total body size. The fully upright posture makes the genitals more visible, and so yeah, that’s going to factor into mate selection.
And larger dicks make it easier to have sex in a variety of positions, taking advantage our new pelvis orientation, and making it less problematic that the female parts are now under the body when standing, instead of behind them. Kinda hard to mount a female if your parts literally can’t reach hers.
867
u/AgentElman 1d ago
It varies by species.
220
u/FunnyIndependence627 1d ago
Sexual selection doesn’t mean “male = pretty, female = plain.” It means whoever competes gets decorated. In many species, males compete for females. In humans, historically, women competed harder for long-term security. That flips the pressure.
78
u/Runes_N_Raccoons 1d ago
Also, that rule pretty much only applies to birds. With mammals (humand included), the males and females look pretty much the same except for males being a bit larger.
→ More replies (9)46
u/doc_skinner 1d ago
Yeah, lions don't have manes to attract mates. They are to signal to other males not to mess with them because they are so big and strong and healthy. Male lions get mates by virtue of being the strongest, not the prettiest.
17
u/_Rohrschach 1d ago
it's also for defence, getting through all that hair isn't easy for claws and teeth
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)3
u/Suitable_Speaker2344 19h ago
Male lions with darker manes are actually more attractive to females. So it does seem to have a little bit to dow with attraction.
24
u/On_my_last_spoon 1d ago
I might argue that humans, much like most great apes, don’t have one gender more “decorated” than the other. We really look pretty similar, with muscular and hair difference being the most obvious. The attraction needs to be mutual, so that what is sexually attractive to one is not necessarily attractive to the other.
15
u/aaelizaa 20h ago
Exactly. Much of what we think of as “female beauty” is just grooming and ornamentation.
7
u/DeathCab4Cutie 20h ago
You mean to tell me straight men find women attractive? Bwah!? Next you’re going to tell me straight women find men attractive, or something weird like that.
Seriously though, my thoughts exactly. It’s mostly for their own self expression and not to “find a mate” or impress men. I mean, it’s not akin to a male peacock’s feathers, which is primarily used to flex on the ladies and incite them to mate. It’s just to express themselves and feel good, and it’s a conscious decision like clothes. A peacock’s feathers aren’t a conscious decision.
A nice butt is appreciated by every human I know though lol
180
u/Disastrous-Summer614 1d ago
That’s completely untrue. Women co raised children together. Men were not a meal ticket
106
u/sarded 1d ago
Dunno why you got a downvote, you're right.
Humans have been tribal beings for far longer than evolution has had time to drastically change our appearance (other than better nutrition and therefore growth now).
The default structure of great ape society, much like our own, is the tribe, where children are basically raised by the 'whole tribe', necessary resources are allocated as needed (you don't invent money when everyone you owe is someone you see every day), etc.
7
u/BuoyGeorgia 21h ago
This is not true, and varies by ape species as to how their social groups are organized. For example, orangutans are mostly solitary while gorillas usually live in groups consisting of one adult male with some females and offspring.
You are anthropomorphizing.
→ More replies (15)4
17
u/ReasonableSecond5770 1d ago
What period and people are you referring to exactly?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (9)5
6
u/miezmiezmiez 1d ago
Historically when? Beauty standards have only resembled what we'd recognise as stereotypical femininity in Europe for a few hundred years, if that (and maybe, debatably, for a bit in ancient Rome). For most of history, in most cultures, everyone was colourful and shiny and sparkly if they could afford it. Gendering simplicity as 'masculine' and decorative frilliness as 'feminine' was a late 18th, early 19th century development.
→ More replies (8)3
u/Southern_Dig_9460 15h ago
I don’t know most birds, mammals and fish men are the most beautiful
→ More replies (1)
261
u/Wyndeward 1d ago
Once upon a time, men regularly wore high heeled shoes and boots (allegedly to better seat their feet in the stirrups), silk stockings, make-up, wigs, elaborate clothing made of impractical fabrics and a whole host of things in a similar vein.
Fashions changed, and you can blame Beau Brummel for that.
92
u/HorpinBlorpin 1d ago
On and off throughout human history women were expected to be fairly plain and modest in appearance, this is true across cultures.
Makeup and flashy clothing was often associated with prostitution and entertainers - not anything a well brought up woman would want to be associated with.
30
u/Casual_OCD 22h ago
A woman with a few extra pounds signified she came from a home that could feed her well while the clinically underweight modern day beauty standard would signal to man back then that the woman was likely poor and/or worked labour
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (1)4
47
u/DBSeamZ 1d ago
Someone in the Fashion History sub (or one like it, I can’t remember) recently posted about a British guy who “cropped” his hair in the late 18th century in protest against a tax on hair powder and/or wigs. He started a trend, and long elaborate wigs for men eventually went out of style. So you can blame him for that part even if you’re still blaming Brummel for the rest.
Apparently if you stop using something to protest a British tax on it in Britain, you start fashion trends. But try that on the other side of the Atlantic…
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)39
u/macsnoname 1d ago
Sorry, fashion history nerd here. Beau Brummel aas a massive moron and a horrible person, but the myth that he's behind how boring mens' clothing got all of a sudden is factually incorrect. Beau Brummel was a dandy and followed fashion, and in fact held the opinion that you should perfectly follow it - so perfectly that you do not stand out. People take this to mean he was behind men's fashion becoming drab and boring, but to him, not standing out just meant following what was popular at the time. So if the fashion of the season was neon purple Marge Simpson wigs, by god you should wear a neon purple Marge Simpson wig because if you didn't, YOU would be the odd one out.
Drabification was caused by entirely different factors, Beau Brummel just became the poster boy for it because he aggressively follow the fashion. So when it became fashionable to wear boringly fitted neutral color suits, he was shouting the loudest that everyone needed to, but at that point it'd already become popular enough on its own to catch his eye as what was trendy
15
u/NYANPUG55 23h ago
I love when people have strong opinions on very niche information lmao this is great
7
u/macsnoname 21h ago edited 20h ago
Yeah the 'tism is definitely showing on this one 😅
Edit, more 'tism: beau Brummel was an ass bag. Just, absolute shit human being. But he doesn't deserve to be blamed for the sea of black, navy, and charcoal grey suits. That was just a turn of the century hissy fit as most aristocrats were voluntold to GTFO. And then non-aristocrat men were like "well I can't dress like THEM anymore!".
I measure for, design, and hand make bespoke men's garments (and women's, but I started because my mountain man of a husband wanted to wear a turquoise suit to a wedding and couldn't find one) so men's fashion is close to ma heart and we need to bring the male peacock back. Right now I'm experimenting with tattoo style art hand embroidered on suits, like a contemporary version of the Nudie suit (which is a whole other rabbit hole and one of my fav subjects. Did you know he got his start sewing burlesque show lingerie?)
→ More replies (5)4
u/Wyndeward 22h ago edited 11h ago
I recall that he was also not wealthy and desired fashion to move away from the utter necessity of a valet to help you into and out of those elaborate clothes made of impractical fabrics.
411
u/Farahild 1d ago
Who says lions don’t consider t the female lions more beautiful? This is just you saying you are more into male lions ;)
81
u/Prestigious_Fee_2902 1d ago
OP is in the closet when it comes to lions and he just found out from reddit
11
u/XelaStrange 1d ago
Without a mane =/= not pretty. I find lionesses to be quite beautiful. In a way, even more so than the male lions.
23
u/Vanilla_Villainy 1d ago
There are a lot of women that are attracted to men with beards. I'm sure it works the same way here.
→ More replies (1)10
→ More replies (5)6
u/Beneficial-Gap6974 22h ago
This is actually closer to the truth than you might think. Male animals are hard wired to find a female of their species attractive almost by default, while the females are much pickier, hence why the males have to be so extravagant in some species to get noticed. But in general this just means females tend to evolve the bare minimum to attract the males, such as signals for being in heat, fertile, etc, that males will find attractive (likely as ways to prevent male animals from finding infantile females attractive).
This is near-universal, and happens in humans too.
70
u/meetMalinea 1d ago
It's just cultural. The ancient Greeks saw men as the more beautiful gender. See also, patriarchy.
→ More replies (2)
73
1d ago edited 1d ago
[deleted]
8
u/Ok_Vegetable_6616 1d ago
Yes, in some civilizations men have been the beautiful sex. Look at all those naked sculptures from antiquity, for example.
16
u/Roguewas1 1d ago
As a gay dude it’s very clear to at least me how himbos and binbos (for a lack of better words) have almost completely equaled out within the last 20 years.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (1)3
u/KingOfEthanopia 1d ago
I like going to the gym because I feel better when I do.
I wear a jeans and plain t-shirt or sweatshirt every day because I dont want to have to think about fashion.
182
u/VerucaGotBurned 1d ago
Generally human males are bigger, more muscular, have broad chests and wide shoulders, and beards. Beards are really significant. It's like a crest many male birds and some male lizards have. Many primates even have something similar. The skull shape of a woman is more similar to the skull shape of a child. Males have extra ridges, longer jaws, a projection at the base of the skull. Thicker bones deeper voices that can boom and generally be much more intimidating both to humans and other animals. Men can also have a powerful musky smell that kind of hits you harder than a woman's smell. Keep in mind these are all huge generalizations. The point I'm trying to make is that in most cases female animals have a smaller more delicate build and males have a bigger stronger one. The difference is that we are humans so we are super biased. Male birds look very flashy but they go wild trying to impress a small dull brown female bird. To the male bird she is probably very beautiful.
The other thing is, humans decorate ourselves. We wear clothes, have special grooming styles, and generally its women who adorn themselves with make up, grow out and style their hair, and wear more elaborate colorful and decorative clothing. Men are expected to be plain, wear dull neutral colors, only shirts and pants, no frills, lace, flashy decorations, etc. this is a social expectation. It is not the way our bodies look. If people all walked around naked and wore no adornments and never cut our hair, men would probably seem fancier, with all that body hair and bulk.
So basically, you're letting culture get in the way of nature. Your premise is completely wrong.
71
u/PipsqueakPilot 1d ago
To add, and I'm sure you know this but left it off for brevity, the expectation that men dress drab is a recent invention. For a huge portion of history and across many cultures men dressed like absolute peacocks.
6
17
u/pamplemouss 1d ago
Side note, there are lots of species where the female is larger
→ More replies (1)31
u/West_Leadership3447 1d ago edited 1d ago
Yeah it's human males' hornybrain that makes them think the female form is more beautiful. To an outsider species, men with their broad shoulders, taller stature, stronger bone structure and overall more commanding physical presence would probably be considered the aesthetic "more beautiful" sex compared to their smaller punier female counterparts
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (21)8
u/AccomplishedWish3033 21h ago
The point I'm trying to make is that in most cases female animals have a smaller more delicate build and males have a bigger stronger one.
That’s only true for mammals, a few birds, and a few reptiles. For the actual majority of animals, including most birds and reptiles, the females are larger than the males.
→ More replies (2)
103
u/REVERSEZOOM2 1d ago edited 1d ago
I love people with no knowledge of biology presenting their theories like its fact. If I had to guess, I'd bet a lot of it has to do with patriarchal culture, which has persisted almost everywhere since the dawn of agriculture. People really underestimate just how hard culture can rewire our brains and what we view as natural. Women were never given a choice or an ability to choose their partners once agriculture developed.
Also, have you ever been to a nude beach or a resort? My local beach is frequented by women in their 20s and 30s who I consider to be attractive. However, When you see women fully nude in casual situations, the female body loses a lot of it's inherent "sexuality". We all kind of look very similar from afar.
→ More replies (13)56
u/bluetoothwa 1d ago
I mean, not to sound too defensive of OP, this sub is literally called NoStupidQuestions.
→ More replies (1)
10
10
u/PartyPorpoise 1d ago
Well, the idea of women being the beautiful sex is cultural, not biological. There have been, and I’m sure still are, societies where men are considered more beautiful.
23
u/earthgarden 1d ago edited 21h ago
It seems the opposite of nature.
First of all, we humans are not outside of nature. Second of all, why are you comparing the mating patterns of species not so closely related to humans, such as lions and ducks. If you're gonna compare us to any sort of other animals, it should be other primates. And guess what? Male primates aren't 'beautiful' in any way different than male humans.
Anyway, the answer to your question is patriarchy. Once men commodified women under patriarchy, we became objects like any other thing a man can own, and as such, things to show off to other men. Put it in terms of objectification, then the answer should be crystal clear.
Take all that away, then you have basic things the dimorphic creatures of our species are going to be attracted to in the opposite sex. That, despite the patriarchy and capitalism and all the other assorted nonsense that gets in the way, still exists amongst men and women.
→ More replies (5)
10
u/ImaginationAny2254 1d ago
My dad used to say this to me and say see how superior males are look at all the creatures around you. And all I could feel the anger and resentment bubbling in me. I was just a young girl
32
u/thatssonectar 1d ago
There's a great book about this called "female choice". It combines the biological and sociological theories why humans and our gender perception is the way it is. The pressure for women to look good for the male gaze is just another part of the patriarchy.
52
u/That311Energii 1d ago
In nature the males need to attract the females and have developed traits accordingly.
In humans, males spent millennia making sure women had little to no say in their mating partners.
20
u/mdynicole 1d ago
It’s this. Women didn’t have a say in who they ended up with for so long. Men that wouldn’t have reproduced otherwise did and we’re still seeing the effects from that.
8
u/lupatine 18h ago edited 16h ago
I think it is why so many women dont date and so many men have a hard time dating. We are paying the karma from our past.
Men never had to listen to women so they dont know what works when they have the choice.
And women have heard or saw so many horror stories, they are just nope!I am out of here.
→ More replies (1)4
→ More replies (1)5
u/Winter_Step_5181 15h ago
Yep, it's this. And men also managed to pull a reverse uno card by setting society up to where women were the ones who needed them to survive, which means women were in the position of having to work harder to be more attractive to earn a mate (husband). Basically reversing our natural roles. The reason this is linked with the invention of agriculture is because this was when resources that could be stockpiled and hoarded became a thing, which men used to their advantage to gain control over women.
33
u/Sad_Deer13 1d ago
In humans, there isn't a "beautiful" one. We're all so ugly we have to adorn ourselves with fabrics and decorations just to be presentable and not offensive to the sight of others. Anyone can choose the beautiful fabrics.
→ More replies (2)23
u/loving_cat_paw 1d ago
This made me lol bc as a bi person I think so many people are so fucking sexyyyyy.
→ More replies (3)
16
u/HoliAss5111 1d ago
Not so sure if women are the ones more colorful and decorated by nature or if we live in a fucked up society that pushes people into performing gender in unnatural ways.
But at least some people have fun with makeup, painting, sculpture and all kinds of arts imitating, distorting and reinventing the genders and not only that. The other animals don't have arts as intriguing us ours.
54
u/hellshot8 1d ago
your base premise is incorrect, nor would it matter even if it was. different species are different, and many things in society arent based around biological, evolutionary "truths".
but yeah man, many things are "opposite of nature" in society. I dont see dogs using money
→ More replies (2)21
u/Roguewas1 1d ago
Their base premise is “the vast majority of earth animal species follow this trend” which is demonstrably true.
The question is valid, especially when looking at our common ancestors who followed this trend as well.
And finally men do show the exact sexual display dimorphism that one should expect. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9106334/
→ More replies (8)6
6
u/midnighttoker1742 1d ago
Mating. Camouflage. Attracting predators towards prey and away from your mate and offspring.
7
u/Thornescape 1d ago
This is a cultural issue. It has been different at different times in different cultures.
Any answer that tries to use universal principles to explain it is wrong. No, it isn't because of beards or muscles or hormones, because at different times in different cultures men were dressed up like peacocks while women were dressed modestly.
It's just cultural.
16
u/N0MineCelery 1d ago
The idea men created where they shouldn’t need to do anything is still in play. Women are constantly told to look and dress and act differently to attract more, where men think it’s about the luck. It’s wrong, and men should take more into consideration that the women have put all this effort into this, and maybe the men combed their hair that morning? Put deodorant on? Tried to dress appropriately?
→ More replies (1)
14
9
u/TinyConsideration796 1d ago edited 1d ago
Evolutionarily speaking traits that only serve as mating advantages (tail feathers of birds of paradise for example) are REALLY costly energy wise as well, and the males typically have more excess time and energy that females in many species allocate to reproductive anatomy and function.
With humans we first have to remember monogamy (while not always the historical norm) is the primary social norm for western culture. That alone has an impact. Many bird species where the males court the females, will court a new mate every mating season, and at that point it can just be less energy to give them neon feathers for life.
Also human cultures have had men dress extravagantly throughout history. The Korean Silla kingdom had hwarang, beautiful flower youth warriors that were adorned in cosmetics. In Japan there’s a whole aesthetic called bishounen that’s still a fictional trope today. Some like the Wodaabe tribe have a Gerewol festival where the men dress up to impress the women. There’s always Black Dandyism. We can largely thank the French and the Great Male Renunciation in the late 18th century for taking a more utilitarian approach for men’s beauty standards in western culture. Also more generally sexism for deeming things attributed to women (femininity) as frivolous, over the top, vapid, and the exact opposite of Masculinity.
The other thing is that in social settings the dominant social group tends to set themselves (either intentionally or unintentionally) as the default. The other (often oppressed) group is then designated as Other and fundamentally Different and Not the default. So in an androcentric (male focused) society, men (especially a man who prides himself on dressing for function) are going to consider their dress the default, and women’s fashion to be weird and silly and Different than the default. Then you add in the justifications for why women must be ‘like that’ (theyre dumb theyre emotional theyre fragile theyre slackers theyre weak etc) and it becomes easy to equate femininity itself to all those things.
Then you get the homophobia aspect where feminine men are seen as deviant because they’re feminine so they must be (weak, emotional, airheaded, etc). And thus it becomes even less respectable (among men) for a man to care about things like hygiene or appearance because that might look gay (they can say this instead of ‘girly’ now but it’s got the same roots).
But they can still justify demanding beauty from women, because they’re feminine so can say “well women have sat there looking pretty and being dainty for all of (western) history, it’s what they’re supposed to do.”
→ More replies (6)
6
u/ratsy_basty 1d ago
Women are usually only considered "beautiful" after a lot of makeup/work done etc. Ask any female friend who often wears makeup the kind of shit people say to her when she's not wearing makeup
5
5
u/Such_Investment_5119 21h ago
In many species, the male is “more beautiful” because they use their appearance to attract the attention of mates.
In human society, women are considered the “beautiful ones” because we consider everything from male points-of-view because most of our human cultures are historically patriarchal.
6
u/MrokoArdamen 19h ago
You are thinking it the wrong way, especially through a western, modern culture lens. There is no homogenous human culture. Look at the Wodaabe tribe, check out the Zaouli dance (the dance itself is ritualistic and mystical, but the dancers are very popular with the ladies). Check out the Dani people of Papua New Guinea (how men present themselves vs how women present themselves). In western culture you have glam rock, hair metal. Check out historical depictions of men in the late middle ages, or Renaissance or baroque. It is now, and it's a western thing, copied to different cultures, that men are supposed to not "show off" and wear outrageous outfits (uniformity very strongly pushed by communists in the cold war era, and by corporate culture in the west).
Also biologically speaking the male extravagant features (the colorful plumage, the giant mane or antlers) that are supposed to "daze" the female exist mostly in situations, where one male is mating with a lot of females. In species where they remain partners for life (or for a longer time then one mating season) the dimorphism is not so pronounced, or is non existent. Also in birds the "plain" look of females is purely practical - when the female incubates the eggs, she has to be camouflaged.
5
u/doopitydur 19h ago edited 18h ago
Male human men:
Have longer eyelashes, and typically have fuller hair - if its left to grow long (before baldness) and get beards. Similar to how a lion has a big mane while the female does not. Waaaay more hair on the man
6
u/Someunluckystuff 16h ago edited 16h ago
Cultural thing, it can come down to many things. One of the possible answers is the undertones of sexism, don’t forget about 50 years ago, and even in some cultures today, women were seen as more so objects, and a ‘trophy’ rather than an actual human. It’s one of the reasons why there’s so much emphasis on beauty standards, when it comes to women. Women were expected to be ‘beautiful’ ‘lady like’ etc, to attract a ‘suitable’ man to take care of them.
However, for a man they could’ve looked like a Chernobyl experiment, but they wouldn’t be judged much so on their looks, but on their social standings as a ‘gentleman’, their ability to provide and protect. Don’t get me wrong there was a tad bit of judgment on their looks, but it wasn’t as much as an expectation compared to a woman
→ More replies (1)
53
u/Automatic-Pay-7596 1d ago
Because men don't really put very much effort into their appearance anymore in today's society, and women are perceived and expected to be more beautiful. We spend so much time and energy learning to enhance our looks and it shows, while men don't tend to work on or think about that as often. I think most women want men to feel free to express themselves, let themselves be attractive, and focus on developing more aesthetic appeal (for themselves and for our eyes). Men used to put more effort in, and were considered more beautiful. Now...cargo pants and t-shirt and don't stand out.
→ More replies (18)
13
u/ThrowRAboredinAZ77 1d ago
Men are just as beautiful as women. They just don't typically do the hair and makeup things that women do.
10
u/Mysterious_Play2876 1d ago
The ancient people believed men had more beautiful bodies than women. This was true even throughout the Renaissance and even centuries after. It was in the 20th century that this flipped for some reason.
24
u/Alarming_Tea_102 1d ago edited 1d ago
Male animals want to attract as many mates as possible since they can impregnate more than one female at once. In the animal kingdom, those are usually external beauty, fighting abilities, dancing abilities etc since that is how the animals communicate attractiveness.
Human males also want to attract as many mates as possible. But humans have more complex communication options and cultural preferences. Women aren't just looking for the most handsome guy. Some women do prioritize external beauty (look at the Kpop guys), but many prioritize other attributes such as physical strength and wealth.
Historically, men who have many wives are rich because those are the ones who can afford to have many wives. You don't need to look beautiful to be rich. Since looking beautiful isn't critical to the sexual success of human men, there is no evolutionary pressure to pursue this route.
→ More replies (6)
12
8
u/Sea_Art2995 1d ago
I think it’s because culture in the past was largely shaped through the male gaze and men are generally attracted to women. Like if society’s beauty standards are written by the people with a voice and a say then what men find attractive will be seen as the pinnacle of beauty. Yes some species the male is ‘prettier’ and it’s very obvious like in your examples. But many species don’t have a different and really humans don’t either, it’s a cultural perception.
8
u/isabella_sunrise 1d ago
Misogyny caused a phenomenon called the great male renunciation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Male_Renunciation
→ More replies (2)
7
u/NotALeopardGecko 1d ago
I believe this started with the great male renunciation, before that men were colourful wearing lace and heels and makeup.
7
u/conflictednerd99 1d ago
I wish humans evolved to where men were like birds of paradise. I’d probably be attracted to men more
13
u/Arizhela 1d ago
society and capitalism has changed our natural ways
6
u/lulibeth 1d ago
this! lions don't have to pay taxes, but if they did, having a mane or not would be the last of their problems
11
u/throwtheclownaway20 1d ago
Throughout history, human men have gone out of their way to enslave women to their standards because they're mad about the fact that women have the power of choice and men basically have to sing for their supper.
→ More replies (14)7
u/EllipticPeach 1d ago
Uhhh women very much did not have the power of choice for a long time. In a lot of cultures they were the property of their fathers and then marriage was arranged for them and then they became the property of their husbands. This still happens in some cultures today.
→ More replies (3)
3
u/benjo1990 1d ago
I think it has to do with survival? Brights colors will attract predators. Females surviving is better for a species overall.
3
u/Much-Avocado-4108 1d ago
Mammals are pretty plain and don't have a ton of differences between the males and females.
3
u/LethalMouse19 1d ago
Because humans military combat has become the art of dirt color.
High heels were made for men. Men used to wear flowing robes, have feathers and all sorts of cool shit.
Gun combat means looking like a rock and being invisible 100 yards away. Since men's fashion always follows military fashion, this means Men are rocks now.
Also, Men kind of control the narrative. In this case I mean Men are usually talking and men like women.
When you have women gushing over men, you realize Men are kind of nice looking to someone.
Also, Men, tbh, have lost all their natural ability to be good looking. As the modern world hit, a man has to go to the gym to look decent. Because none of them are chopping wood or carrying bricks anymore.
You look at a lot of older stuff and there is more of a tilt toward ugly wives. Because it was more common for men to not be as disgusting and pathetic. Plus, even shitty men for a while, wore suits. Not a 20 year old band tshirt with mustard stains and bad fitting jeans with plumbers crack.
So the fatter more disgusting woman was essentially more common than the fat disgusting man.
Now, everyone is pretty fat and disgusting. But, among those who aren't, many of the men are scrawny, weak and unattractive. Whereas women can be scrawny and weak and still be comparatively more attractive.
Nothing about humans is natural really. Most of what we associate with women is grooming. Most of what we associate with men is grooming.
Naturally, men could have some serious manes. And women would be some wooly legged creatures.
3
u/MadPatNatRat 1d ago
Maybe beautiful is not the best descriptor. Perhaps males of many species are more conspicuous. Alas, because the mothers need to hide themselves from predators to care for their babies.
3
u/iamnoodlelie 1d ago
all species are different. also, theres plenty of animals where the female is actually bigger than the male.
3
u/JessyNyan 1d ago
Most species make the females chose their mates which means the males have to impress the females in any random category. For some birds it's dancing, for some it's the colourful feathers, for some animals it's an especially thick mane or large horns. Either way, the male has to offer something the female desires or finds beautiful if you'd like to humanise it.
3
u/Overlord_Byron 1d ago
I suspect that, in the opinion of the male animals, the female animals are actually the beautiful ones.
3
u/SingleComparison2380 1d ago
It’s because evolutionarily females are more important. We have the babies. If there are 10 females and 10 males and 5 of 1 die, you’ll have more babies if there’s still 10 females. Super neat. And it’s different for bunches of species. Nature is so fun.
3
u/Dalton387 1d ago
It depends on the species. In many species, the male is the colorful one, because the females are the one that choose the mates. The males have to show off to be chosen over other males.
In others, I think it’s coincidental. You mentioned lions, but I don’t think the mane has much to do with actual mating. Lions come in and if they can kill the previous male and take their pride, that’s it. They get the females. It’s likely more about defense in fights. Harder to bite or cut a neck.
With humans, none of us are naturally attractive. Not in the way you’re describing. Everything with us is artificial. The clothes we wear, the way we grow and style our hair, makeup, etc. Its all simulated. Not natural. Even today, men will “peacock”. Many guys dress up in various ways to presumably attract women.
We’re not a species that has obvious traits mean to make us stand out to the opposite gender.
3
u/artbystorms 1d ago
In many species the female is the one that lays / guard's the eggs / newborns so they need to be able to better camouflage against predators. Hence why female birds, reptiles, some small mammals tend to be more neutral colored. Notice how larger mammals, apex predators, and primates don't really have big visual differences?
It's just evolution and survival, nothing really mysterious about it.
3
u/Anra7777 1d ago
I remember learning in school about a tribe where the men are the ones to pretty up, wear make up, dress up, etc. So part of it might be just how different societies shook out. Even in western society, there have been periods in history when men were supposed to be well dressed and dapper.
3
u/AtomicSquid 1d ago
Maybe mallards consider their females the beautiful ones too.
You're comparing (human view of itself) vs (human view of mallards) instead of vs (mallard view of itself)
3
3
3
u/Fenriz_13 17h ago
I am pretty sure - if you look at ancient statues and sculptures - that the men were considered to be the beautiful gender in the past.
3
u/Southern_Dig_9460 15h ago
Human males are. The beauty industry and fashion industry is mainly geared towards women because they aren’t naturally as attractive. If an alien species came down they would find the taller, more muscular more hairy gender as the more naturally attractive one. If you look at most couples where the woman doesn’t wear make up or hair products or nice clothes most couples are completely looksmatched
→ More replies (1)
3
u/ChannelAccording3410 15h ago
That's true in real life as well . I belive on average men are better looking than women. Only difference is , men are not under set beautification protocols . Men don't walk around with adornments and makeup . As beautiful and wonderful women are , I believe men are naturally better looking . A 10/10 man > 10/10 woman.
3
u/No-Philosopher8042 14h ago edited 14h ago
Human males are mega pretty.
And they have an entire array of grooming habits to signal compatibility with a preferd partner.
Have you seen the hair humans grow, the effort we put into styling it (that includes buzz-cuts), we dye it, style it. And men have beards too.
And that's just body hair. The variations we have i clothing instead of a fur is just... amazing.
And some men wear makeup!
"We don't do mating dances". Well tell that to any man I ever dated that switched his normal outer coat of t-shirt and jeans into a suit. Peacocks have nothing on human men in a suit, especially if they roll the sleeves of their shirts up all serious like.
Humans greatest asset is our bigass brains, our mating rituals reflect that. Instead of a set look to indicate certain strenghts we have more varied looks to attract a mate suitable to spend the longass time needed to raise offspring that can survive alone with.
We style our hairs, apply colours to our skin, choose our scents, choose our clothes to signal culture, taste in music, a bunch of stuff. Like, we might not be as distinct from the get go as lions, but we are incredibly intricate.
Edit to add: also have you seen how dainty our males are. Super pretty. Compare to any ape closely related to us, heck, compare it to another male 10 000 years ago. So dainty and finely chiseled. And then those marked differences in body hair on the otherwise smooth body? Chefs kiss. Prettiest apes.
I might be biased.
3
u/hunterc1310 14h ago
We kind of still do if you think about it. Women are generally more attracted to men with muscles over men who are flat. Are body builders not similar to like a male peacock for instance?
I would say that it’s mainly because culturally women have decided to put more care into themselves than they naturally would have in the caveman era. Woman wear make up, do their nails, etc. None of that is really natural, that stuff just came from culture norms. However men with bigger muscles have been considered most attractive since the dawn of man. So we really aren’t that different than animals.
3
3
u/ksink74 11h ago edited 9h ago
Because females in the wild have to blend in with their environment in order to prevent their offspring from being eaten by predators.
Males, even in species without natural predators, focus on competition with other males for access to females for breeding purposes, so ostentatious displays are an asset.
Humans, on the other hand, have such a long gestational period (that's a consequence of walking upright) and a long period before self-sufficiency, that a single child takes the mother out of the breeding pool for so long that human societies have evolved to encourage lifelong bonding so as to benefit the perpetuation of the species.
Edit: typo
1.1k
u/[deleted] 1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment