Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When you observe nature, you can't help but notice that the male animal is usually the more 'aesthetic' and physically impressive sex.
Spoiler
Kudu Bull:
Kudu Cow:
Impala Ram:
Impala ewe:
Lion:
Lioness:
Male vs female cardinal:
Male vs female gorilla:
In our culture, there's an 'agreement' that women are much better looking than men, but is that really just a subjective point of view far from being universal? The ancient Greeks and Romans, for example, were utterly obsessed with male physical aesthetics. If an impartial alien race were to observe human beings, would they judge men to be the more 'attractive' sex?
In human cultures, the difference between genders often comes down to fashion, which is highly depended on individual cultures, eras, and trends. If aliens saw us, how they judged us would also depend on their cultures. If they went more for the "men are more brightly colored" thing, for instance, they probably would find a lot of modern men plain because of their clothing.
Male animals (in general) play a different role than females and their physical form and behavior reflects that. Males want to announce themselves as genetically superior...either to potential female mates or to competitive males who also want the same females. Females want to be less noticeable because they will be building shelters for and protecting vulnerable young.
Whether either gender's "display" of color, size, physical strength etc. ends up being aesthetically pleasing or not depends on the observer, not the species being observed. You are injecting observer bias into the mix and turning that into something it isn't. That's not an objective approach; its subjective.
When you observe nature, you can't help but notice that the male animal is usually the more 'aesthetic' and physically impressive sex.
In our culture, there's an 'agreement' that women are much better looking than men, but is that really just a subjective point of view far from being universal? The ancient Greeks and Romans, for example, were utterly obsessed with male physical aesthetics. If an impartial alien race were to observe human beings, would they judge men to be the more 'attractive' sex?
If an impartial alien race were to observe humans then being impartial aliens they would not judge either men or women to be attractive. They would only judge men to be bigger and more threatening and dangerous looking than women are. And they'd be right about that because more dangerous IS what men are. Beauty would be irrelevant except to humans.
Looking most dangerous and deadly and capable of protection is the whole point for most male animals being impressive looking. Their appearances are intended to be a warning to their enemies and competitors, they are not intended to look beautiful to observers, not even to the mates they're trying to attract with their dangerous looking appearances.
PS - The ancient Greeks and Romans were obsessed with male physical aesthetics because so many of them were homosexual or bisexual narcissists. Healthy women were only 3rd rate commodities used for the bearing of their children (perpetuation of species) and for looking after the daily comfort needs of the men who owned them and their children.
Male animals (in general) play a different role than females and their physical form and behavior reflects that. Males want to announce themselves as genetically superior...either to potential female mates or to competitive males who also want the same females. Females want to be less noticeable because they will be building shelters for and protecting vulnerable young.
Whether either gender's "display" of color, size, physical strength etc. ends up being aesthetically pleasing or not depends on the observer, not the species being observed. You are injecting observer bias into the mix and turning that into something it isn't. That's not an objective approach; its subjective.
Apparently it depends on the species and the setup of the group. If the males are competing for mates, then the males will likely be more colorful. In some cases, societies are more communal and all the women may not get a mate. In that case, the females may be more colorful or as colorful as the males.
Female animals that you showed pictures of need to be able to camoflage to hide their young.
The male animals that you showed pictures of need to compete for mates and so are more colorful to attract potential mates, thereby also making themselves more vulnerable to spot by predators, which is a vulnerability, not a trait that protects them in anyway. Some may conclude from that that the males are less important and can be sacrificed as prey, that their ability to attract a mate is more important than self-preservation.
Humans have none of these disparities in color. Apparently our evolution decided that being colorful was not as important for the males to attract mates, nor that the females needed to camoflage. Our evolution is a bit murky as to why, but more than likely because the genders do not live alone, but cohabit, so need no colorful traits to attract unknown strangers to the females mates.
Take a look at a female black widow spider compared to the male. She is much bigger and far more striking in color, and only she has the venom to kill.
So everything is all in how you look at it...
I find this thread amusing because it appears to be proclaiming that males are the superior sex. It appears to have an agenda.
Apparently it depends on the species and the setup of the group. If the males are competing for mates, then the males will likely be more colorful. In some cases, societies are more communal and all the women may not get a mate. In that case, the females may be more colorful or as colorful as the males.
Yes. Which was why I didn't write that it was true for ALL males!
The answer to this is, "Duh, females have to be able to hide in the wild to nest or to protect their young. Colorful plumage and markings are a definite liability."
I'm sorry to have to explain basic zoology to you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
