Human's male and female appearances unusal in the natural world?

The recent thread about Adam and Eve makes me think of another question.

In the animal kingdom, it is typically the male of a species that relies on a showy appearence in order to find a mate.

For instance mallard ducks... the makes are absolutely gorgeous and have many colors in their plumage, wheras the females are almost completely shades of brown and white.

Yet with humans, it is the female gender that is expected to beutify herself in order to assist her search for a partner.

Why this difference?

If you beleive in evolution, speculate on how this reversal came about and how it benefits the species.

If you are a creationist, speculate on why God deviated from the pattern most common in nature with humans.

Originally posted by asmeone2
In the animal kingdom, it is typically the male of a species that relies on a showy appearence in order to find a mate.

typical? no one example does nopt make somthign typical

other wise

in nature its typical for the young to be soley raised by the male of the species (see seahorses for refference) why is this not the case in humans

in deep sea angler fish the male becomes a parasitic appendage to the female as is typical in nature why not in people?

in hyena as is typical in all nature the females are larger stronger and more aggressive then males why not in people?

in spiders and praying mantis as is typical for nature the female often eats the male after mating why not in people?


in many species yes the male is the more distinct in colour and pattern and may use other display behaviour to attract a female

in many species male and female look almost identicle till you get close enough to peek under the skirt , most canids and feline equines display very little extrenal differance in sex

and in others its the female thats larger and more distinct

evolution will often use different methods to solve the same issue but sometimes it uses almost identical ones too

i guess evolution is a blind indecisive watch maker or your premise is false

The example i gave was not the only one at all.

animals.about.com...

Young boys and young girls are equally beautiful, most often

Old men and old women are virtually indistinguishable when they step from the shower

Men have better legs than women, most often. And their upper arms stay the distance far better, as a rule

If you take a man and woman in their 30s .. scrub them down .. cut the woman's hair short --- again, there's not much difference between them

Women use make-up .. grow their hair long .. change their natural hair colour .. shave their legs .. have electrolysis to get rid of facial and body hair .. have liposuction .. have fake breasts inserted ... have cosmetic surgery ... etc.


Women use artifice to exaggerate the difference between themselves and men.

Without the artifice there wouldn't be that much of a difference

If men used make-up, cosmetic surgery, surgical body-enhancements, grew their hair long and coloured it, removed facial and body hair, etc., then men would be at least as attractive as many women, if not more so.

Most people realise this truth. There's an unspoken agreement between men and women that women will use artifice in order to appear more attractive than men.

Good points Dock6

I personally think that androgyny is very beutiful.

reply to post by asmeone2


you only gave one example in your post

you also used the words typical in nature

In many species, including most mammals, the male is larger than the female.[1] In others, such as most insects, spiders, birds, reptiles and amphibians, many fish, and certain mammals such as the spotted hyena, the female is larger than the male.

Among vertebrates, sexual dimorphism is particularly apparent in ducks, and most gamefowl perhaps most dramatically including peafowl. Male pheasants are notably larger than females and possess bright plumage; females are usually a brown irrespective of the particular species. In some birds (most of which are waders such as the phalaropes and painted snipes), females have brighter colors than males. As this is the opposite of the usual sexual dichromatism, it is termed reverse sexual dimorphism. In many predatory birds, females are larger than males and often considerably so. This seems to reduce competition between members of a pair, as they have different optimal prey sizes. Some cases of sexual dimorphism in birds are so striking that males and females of the same species were originally taken to be members of entirely different species, as in the case of the Eclectus Parrot (Eclectus roratus), where the male is predominantly green with an orange beak and the female scarlet and deep blue with a black beak.

en.wikipedia.org...

its only typical by ignoring chunks of it, it is just another example of nature at work

so your title is very misleading and out right wrong, it is not unusual in nature

and there are evolutionary theories already out there to explain human dimorphism so why would we need to speculate?
esepcially as there isnt a major reversism that you propose




[edit on 8/11/08 by noobfun]

There are plenty of species in which the male has no spectacular colors to show off. Men's version of this would be flexing their muscles so we actually do have our version of showing off.

I think your confusion is about adding make-up to the mix. Men's effort in attracting mates is best spent in displaying dominant characteristics. So, they may be more worried about modifying their income or muscles than their eyelashes.

To complicate matters, after make-up became associated with women, it became thought of as a female attribute. Women tend to be thought of as less dominant, and therefore make-up becomes associated with "less dominant". So when men do wear make-up to look better, they will hide that fact, even though it does increase their apparent value as a mate.

And actually men do care very much about what they wear, especially in regards of what not to wear. They may for example avoid purple or pink to avoid looking less dominant, or in some cases have a few purple/pink outfits to show that they have a sensitive side. But in both cases they definitely are definitely concerned with their looks. If men were not concerned they would wear the cheapest available clothes, such as always wearing a white cotton t-shirt and a durable but cheap pair of jeans. And actually tend to buy an outfit they think is "cool", and therefore potentially raise their value to a mate.

Furthermore, while men avoid flashy jewelery because it appears less dominant, they will still have things such as gold watches, or a diamond earring (though mostly in the afro-american subculture). My friend at work has a spectacularly white hat he wears, though I'm damned sure it will just go bad because it will get dirty.

Certain species have different dominant genders some times, but I don't see humans as being particularly unusual in the steps taken to a attract a mate, other than of course the unusual objects we have that are a result of our exceptional intelligence.

Been having another think about it whilst off doing something else ...


In nature, it seems the males are keen to replace themselves .. are keen to produce young.

The fact males (animals, birds, etc.) decorate themselves, their bowers and display spectacular plumage, antlers, etc. implies the males are keener to mate and perpetuate their species than are the females. Doesn't it ? And it seems that in nature, it's the males who 'make the effort' .. doesn't it ?

But with humans, it's the females who decorate themselves and generally seek to entice the males.

So what does that mean ?

Human young take longer to mature than most animals, birds, etc.
Also, until recently, a woman quite often had several children within as many years. By the time her children were grown, the woman was no longer young.

During the time the woman was devoting virtually all her energy and resources to raising her children, she was needful of protection and provision for herself and her offspring. Times were hard .. no welfare or police to protect against invading hoardes or famine. She and her children needed someone to protect and provide. Her love for and devotion to her offspring prevented her, in most instances, from just walking away from what was undoubtedly a difficult and exhausting role.

Men though, had a strong drive to reproduce. And in order to ensure that their woman bore only their own children, men needed to be close by to prevent other men from impregnating their woman/the mother of their children. So, even though it was arduous and exhausting, men protected and provided for their families.

Perhaps the reason women sought to enhance their appearance was the fact there were few options other than marriage for most women ? There were no careers or paid employment for women. Women had little if any power. Providing women with an education was regarded as a waste. We're speaking here of 'ordinary' women, not the privileged classes.

Perhaps also, due to war, there was generally a surplus of women compared to men in times past.

What few possessions most peasants had were generally passed down to the eldest son and/or sons. Daughters then could expect to become homeless and destitute when their parents died. So perhaps it was considered by most women (and their families) imperative that they find a male protector and provider while they (the women) were at the peak of their attractiveness. It would therefore have been logical that women would seek to enhance their attractiveness.

If so, men and women could have become accustomed to a situation where men were regarded as a valuable resource to be competed for.

Men are said to be 'visually attracted'. Hence wide, 'childbearing' hips, large breasts as an indicator a woman could successfully feed her children. Pink cheeks and lips .. sexual stimulants. Shiny hair and eyes .. indicators of robust good health equals good childbearing potential .. and so on. Leading later to lipstick, rouge, hair dye and other 'appearance enhancing' cosmetics, etc.

Men have always held power. They're larger, stronger and have the wealth, with few exceptions. Women desirous of power and wealth (large or miniscule) have generally had to obtain it VIA a man .. or even a succession of men.

It's been a trade-off: men can have sex with any number of women, but there's a limit to how many children a man can support and generally, men have remained with the mother of their children .. because a man's children guarantee him a form of immortality. And in order a man's possessions will be passed down to his own offspring has required him to legitimise his relationship with his children's mother/nursemaid/caretaker.

Marriage has provided a woman also with the potential for security should her husband die .. and with a form of security (roof and food) during her child-rearing years.

So, the man has had a woman to bear and raise his children and a woman has been provided room and board in return for bearing and raising those children.

Had women throughout history possessed wealth and power (to whatever degree) then no doubt it would have been men who'd sought to enhance their attractiveness via physical adornment or muscular development or whatever it took to successfully compete with other males for women's favour.

Are things different now .. even though women form more than half the work force and are able to provide themselves (if they choose) with a home, car, holidays, retirement funds ?

Apparently not .. or not yet.

Is Hugh Hefner a physically attractive man ? Yet he's surrounded by beautiful young women a third his age. Why? Power and wealth again ?

And here's a question : would Western women still pay someone to jam a plastic bag filled with silicone in their chest-wall in the hope of appearing 'more attractive' if their families undertook to arrange 'roof and board' for life for them .. via arranged marriage .. as is the case for example with many Muslim girls ?

Is marriage still regarded by women as 'easier' than going to work and providing for themselves ? In times of high unemployment .. are there greater numbers of teenage pregnancies ?

Do women still choose to surrender their own power in return for marriage or welfare payments ?

If so, what does that say about our society ? Are we encouraging females to earn their independence ? Are we encouraging them to raise their personal bar higher ?

Will the indicator that women are choosing to be independent be a noticeable decrease in cosmetics, cosmetic surgery and other forms of artifice ?

Is that happening right now ? And are we seeing an increase in male cosmetics, cosmetic surgery and a desire to appear 'more attractive' ? If so, is it because women are electing to remain single and childless .. and are becoming more wealthy and powerful ? Or is marketing responsible for the fact men are becoming more appearance-conscious ?

but dont forget that make up, funky fro's and short skirts are more a part of our own created social culture then part of evolution


so the question should be "what in our culture lead to women ... etc etc"

not what in evolution

Male self-adornment for mating purposes is and has been widespread. Charles Darwin addressed the topic in detail in The Descent of Man:

In most, but not all parts of the world, the men are more ornamented than the women, and often in a different manner; sometimes, though rarely, the women are hardly at all ornamented. As the women are made by savages to perform the greatest share of the work, and as they are not allowed to eat the best kinds of food, so it accords with the characteristic selfishness of man that they should not be allowed to obtain, or use the finest ornaments.

It should be mentioned that the drab appearance of females of some species (such as the mallard) often serves as camouflage while protecting the young.

[edit on 8-11-2008 by Phage]

[edit on 8-11-2008 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Don't know which post you're addressing, but yes, of course it's true that in certain cultures, in virtually all eras, the male has primped and preened. And even today, it's common to see Italian men, for example, strutting their stuff whilst the women, garbed in black, slave in the kitchen.

How often in history though, have powerful men become powerful based upon their appearance ? Do we hear how 'beautiful' was Attila the Hun ?

Having said that however, I've immediately remembered Alexander.

But Napoleon for example, or Wellington or Drake, or Ghengis Khan ... did their fame and power rely upon their appearance .. or their exploits ?

Yes .. I agree .. there was also Beau Brummel

Livingstone, Hillary, Freud, Patton, Churchill, Hitler, Cook, Darwin .. their fame lives on yet none were particularly physically attractive.

Cleopatra was arguably in their league .. yet what is she primarily famous for ... her looks.

Helen of Troy .. face that launched a thousand ships. So if she'd looked like Ugly Betty, we can suppose there'd be a huge missing chunk in history.

Heiress Barbara Hutton was no oil-painting --- but she was very rich (therefore 'powerful') and so she snared the younger and incredibly handsome Cary Grant.

There's obviously advantage in physical attractiveness, as evidenced by billion-dollar cosmetic industries which are patronised primarily by women.

Jean Reno (much as I like him) resembles a sad-eyed, moulting vulture. Gerard Depardeau (sp ?) is quite hideous. But it doesn't matter .. they're popular, idolised, wealthy, famous .. and are living proof that men don't need to be physically attractive to 'make it'.

Where are the female versions of Depiardeau and Reno ? And if they exist, are they tossing love-sick men out of their beds with the same regularity as are their male counterparts ?

How many males in this thread are happily married to or in relationships with women who don't shave their legs, don't wear make-up, do have a crew-cut, do wear shapeless apparel, don't trim their nails or wear perfume or make any effort at all with their appearance other than to bathe regularly ?

reply to post by Dock6


From the OP:

Yet with humans, it is the female gender that is expected to beutify herself in order to assist her search for a partner.

The statement was not referencing power and influence but gaining an advantage in mating, one of the prime mechanisms of evolution.

My point (admittedly badly made, thanks for the opportunity to elaborate) is that it is not only the female who is expected to self-adorn. In humans it is a "requirement" of both genders. Human secondary sexual characteristics do not include plumage or brilliant coloration as do those of some other species. Instead humans of both genders enhance and supplement the features that they possess through artificial means to enhance their attractiveness (as do some other species, the bower bird is an interesting example).

Furthermore, there are many species which do not display even as much sexual differentiation as humans. Gaudy secondary characteristics may enhance the ability to mate but they are not necessarily a survival mechanism.