Observing nature-Objectively, are men actually the more 'aesthetic: sex?

[K12144]

If we look at which sex is the one expected to put forth a lot of effort to be attractive for the other, this isn't even a question. I'll consider the OP to be true when a man has to shave most of his body, slather on makeup and spend time on a hairdo, paint his nails (or glue on fake ones), exfoliate nearly every inch of his skin, and dress to the nines, before a date so he can be deemed "acceptable."

[csignorelli]

I don't know about the animal kingdom, but as far as humans are concerned, my opinion is that objectively speaking, men and women are equally attractive in their own unique ways. Who we find attractive says more about our own personal tastes and proclivities than it does about the actual attractiveness of one gender or the other.

[nirvana07]

Males need to attract females for mating.

Mod cut.

[TXRunner]

Originally Posted by K12144

If we look at which sex is the one expected to put forth a lot of effort to be attractive for the other, this isn't even a question. I'll consider the OP to be true when a man has to shave most of his body, slather on makeup and spend time on a hairdo, paint his nails (or glue on fake ones), exfoliate nearly every inch of his skin, and dress to the nines, before a date so he can be deemed "acceptable."

It seems that much of this is done for other females rather than males. Many males would rather not have a woman covered in makeup with fake nails. Hair that is just combed or up in a ponytail seems just as attractive as fancy hairstyles.

The body shaving started relatively recently and it's passed on to guys as well. It's been quite a while since I've seen a male celebrity sporting a bunch of body hair.

The "acceptable" rating seems to be given by the girl herself and what she deems acceptable. I think many guys would just rather go on a date where both are wearing jeans and a t-shirt, and neither are wearing makeup.

Originally Posted by nirvana07

Males need to attract females for mating.

Animals/ birds do it by looking pretty, [Snip.].

I think this is part of the equation. If male birds relied on building an elaborate nest to attract female birds, then you might not see a lot of difference between the two physically. In other animals, it's not so much looks that attract, but sheer size and strength as determined in some kind of fighting.

If you go to the gym and see who's strutting around showing off, I think you'd find more males. Females tend to lay low and just do their workout. The ones looking around to see if anyone's watching and engaging in ridiculous behaviors seem to be largely male.

I agree that a lot of our cultural beauty standards are temporary fads that come and go. There's no reason the female body should be looked at as an object of beauty while the male body is not. It's just the way our society is at the current time. The male body was looked highly upon well past the ancient Roman/Greek societies. If you look at a lot of paintings from the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance, males are overly muscular, especially given what was possible in the way of body building for the time. However, female bodies just kind of look normal, many even sporting a little pudge.

If there were a painting to represent modern times, it'd be Kevin James or Seth Rogan sitting on the couch drinking a beer with Gal Gadot standing next to the couch in a skimpy outfit doing a roundhouse kick to some bad guy's face.

[Parnassia]

Originally Posted by TXRunner

I think this is part of the equation. If male birds relied on building an elaborate nest to attract female birds, then you might not see a lot of difference between the two physically. In other animals, it's not so much looks that attract, but sheer size and strength as determined in some kind of fighting.

Well, that doesn't hold true for bower birds at least. Males are strikingly beautiful (despite their elaborate nest displays) but females are not.

The definition of "fighting" varies too. The males of some forest bird species aren't larger or more brightly colored than females, nor do they use physical strength to compete, but they possess elaborate songs that can carry long distances through dense cover. They "fight" vocally, not physically, and they can modify their songs to outcompete other skilled males. Many male thrushes and babblers have dull colored or simply patterned plumage but have wonderful elaborate songs.

Shamas, hwamei, bulbuls, leafbirds, magpie robins, and some other species also adapt and embellish their display songs when in the presence of other males. If they are raised without hearing other birds their songs tend to be much simpler. There is some evidence some modify their songs from season to season and it may not be triggered by competition. For entertainment or artistic variety? Humans have exploited this trait and breed some of those species for song competitions. Champion male songsters are incredibly valuable. Consider the starlings which includes mynahs. Males and females don't look much or at all different but their vocal abilities are incredible. Up to a certain age. If you want a mynah to be a great talker/mimic you have to start them young and expose them early to sounds you want them to pick up. After a certain age they don't tend to develop much of a repertoire. They are intelligent and still learn after that, but not nearly as well.

But the opposite exists too: many visually striking males don't possess much of a voice. They rely on sight to attract, not sound. Then of course there are the outliers like New Guinea's birds of paradise Astrapia...they use stunning varieties of both (as if one wasn't glorious enough!).