According to a study cited on the current Arts & Letters Daily site (link on the sidebar), women are evolving to become more beautiful over time and men are not. We men are just as ugly as we've always been. How the heck did that state of affairs ever come about?
I take this problem seriously because it's bound to make women more dissatisfied with men, and that kind of thing is reaching crisis proportions already. Think about it, women are currently more likely than men to attend university, have steady jobs, etc.; every day the average man looks less attractive as a life partner. One day this could lead women to repudiate the average guy. They'll look for an alternative to the army of ugly, unemployed men, and the alternative will be....
...Johnny Depp...or men who are rich or handsome like Johnny Depp. As a group, women will follow their instincts and flock to the handful of highly desirable men while ignoring the others. In other words, women will overturn monogamy (one wife).
The effect of this will be a new social order. When you think about it, monogamy is a male invention. Civilized men invented it so that we would all get one woman, instead of the natural state where a few men got all the girls (above).
The effect of this will be a new social order. When you think about it, monogamy is a male invention. Civilized men invented it so that we would all get one woman, instead of the natural state where a few men got all the girls (above).
Let's face it, young women are instinctively attracted to a handful of male superstars. That's great for the superstars but a horrible for the rest of us. I assume the average man used to live the way some apes live now, with one bull impregnating all the females and the other males living a life of quiet desperation.
All of us average men owe a great debt to some male genius in the distant past who figured out monogamy, where each man was able to get a wife of his own, and the Johnny Depps of the world were forced to share...a pretty cool system when you think about it, regardless of what Hugh Hefner thinks. But would a future society dominated by frustrated women support this male agenda?
Maybe not. If ever women decide to go back to the harem system again then things will change in unexpected ways. For one thing, we average men would be forced into a fierce competition for the handful of leftovers that Johnny Depp didn't want. In that event, expect to see lots of muscle guys (above) on the street.
Even the guys who deliver your pizza (above) will look like Jack Kirby's drawings of Greek Gods.
But all the consequences wouldn't be negative. For one thing, the average man would over time become very handsome. We'd be born that way. That's because only the most handsome men would attract mates in a female-driven polygamous state. Ugly men just wouldn't have children. Soon you'd see more handsome men on the street than beautiful women...
...unlike now (above). I should end here, but I can't resist the speculation that monogamy is responsible for the current proliferation of ugly men. Since monogamy guaranteed the legions of ugly men a woman and a family, the genetic contribution of the small number of handsome men was reduced to insignificance. Polygamy (many wives) on the other hand, would put the handsome man on top again.
So monogamy produces ugly men and beautiful women, and polygamy produces beautiful men and ugly women. It follows that if If cavemen were polygamous, which I believe they were, then the male cavemen were probably extraordinarily handsome, and the female cavemen were all Plain Janes...the opposite of what's on the famous Raquel Welch poster (above).
Me, I still prefer the one wife idea. That's because I'd rather be ugly and have a family, than be handsome but lonely and sex-starved. Remember that only the top 10% or so of these handsome men would have mates.
36 comments:
Bodybuilding culture has gotten ridiculous, by greek standards guys like Schwarzenegger had beautiful physiques http://www.arthurshall.com/images/custom_images/arnold_schwarzenegger_training.jpg but now it's become a form of male anorexia.
www.theonion.com/content/node/28472
When the aliens come they'll probably be ticked off by our weakness and evaporate us.
It's kind of a misogynistic thing to say but men can compensate for their looks with stuff like humor, money, accomplishments in a way women can't.
If a man considers a woman unattractive most won't reconsider her as a mate after finding out she is a world class violinist.
There was an interesting study done where men and women were asked to rate the attractiveness of members of the opposite sex based on various photographs.
How men were rated was influenced by whether they had an outgoing or standoffish pose, men dressed as doctors helping patients had a huge boost in attractiveness etc.
For the women there wasn't any difference no matter what she was doing, guys either found her hot or not.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2682654/idiocracy_opening_sequence/ I see America at least evolving along the lines of Npr listeners/Fox News watchers
From what I've seen, many times it seems like the cuter the gal, the uglier the man... sure, they pine for their Johnny, but they always come back to their hairy man-beast. That's obviously not always the case, but I see it with alarming frequency 'round my neck o' the woods.
As George Formby says-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uny1K5jnkYo
Anonymous #3, a wealthy woman with plain features is just as likely to attract a man via her wealth making her more attractive/viable as the reverse is true.
While men have been shown to react much more to surface traditional sexual attractiveness when rating random photographs etc, what IS "attractive" to a man isn't always the same exact Playboy centerfold for every single male.
And while on an animal level men might be aroused by a "look" of a female (assuming he has a brain that functions above the lowest levels), he also craves: not to be bored, to laugh, to feel loved, to love in return. To be happy and relaxed and comfortable, to have friendship and company.
All those things have to be in the mix when lust ends and plain old life has to be attended to.
I guess I'm saying I totally disagree, as I know way too many stories of men and women of all ages, from 20s through 60s, where the guy is very attracted to a woman precisely because " she's a world-class violinist". He finds her sexually attractive to him even if she isn't conventionally pretty to someone not into music.
Studies are just that: lab studies. They aren't real-world situations with all the messiness of life taken into account or what people go through over time, but are too often superficial, blind taste-tests, multiple-choice stuff.
I read of them often and frankly, the conclusions can be skewed almost any way one wants. Real life on the other hand gives real life examples.
I read somewhere that there's a theory that monogamy developed in many societies as a way to reduce male violence. Men who don't have families are more likely to commit violence, in particular the most dangerous kind of violence--the kind where the guy doesn't care if he lives or dies.
Are women really evolving to become more beautiful? Often ugly men and ugly women go together, because beautiful women can get the handsome guys. To be honest it's pretty rare to see even an ugly person of either sex completely without a mate, and when it happens, usually it's due more to mental issues than looks--the person is either insane or mentally disabled, and consequently is not acceptable as a marriage partner, even to someone with low standards. And most average people have low standards. There are a LOT of plain, even ugly, people who have no trouble reproducing.
As for me, myself, personally, looks don't mean squat unless the guy has a personality worth caring about. Part of Johnny Depp's appeal is the personality he exudes--sure, he's rich and famous and easy on the eyes, but he's also striking as an interesting person with interesting tastes. The dude's a character actor. Not exactly leading-man material, and yet he's more popular among the girls than any other Hollywood star I can think of. I think women's satisfaction with men stems a lot more from the man being interesting--funny, creative, anything--than from physical appearance.
Indeed,from the 2 male inventions,Monogamy is better than Polygamy!
"Even the guys who deliver your pizza (above) will look like Jack Kirby's drawings of Greek Gods."
You Including the pizza guy?Hahahahaha This is really hilarious! You choose the right pics for the right outside the box theory =)
Here's an excellent music that is according with all this difficult subject of beauty enjoy:
http://www.themusichutch.com/listen.php?songid=67418
What makes a female more beautiful? More appealing hip to waist ratio? More symmetrical facial features?
And another thing men and woman don't have the same conception of female beauty to begin with. Compare and contrast a woman's fashion magazine like Vogue with a men's 'lad mag' like Maxim. What were the standards used by the researchers?
The ideal female beauty changes over time too. Looking at a statue of Athena in Greece today you'd think she had a case of 'man face'.
Actually, gorilla societies can be that way-- one male claiming a bunch of females-- but we're closer to chimps, and chimps are matrilineal, basically. The male chimps fight with each other to gain status, but it's the alpha females who decide who has the status at the end of each fight. Usually, the winner of the fight maintains status, but not if the alpha female sides with the loser. Another thing about chimps is that the females are not just attracted to the males who attain highest status in their tribe, they are also equally attracted to the "rogue male" chimps, who don't technically have any status at all. The rogue males exist outside of tribal culture, on their own, scratching their privates whenever they want, getting fat, with bad breath from too much garlic on their pizza but the women like them ANYWAY. This infuriates the males within the tribes, who are working really hard to get the same or less attention as the rogues, while the rogues put zero effort into attracting mates yet are successful. So the tribal males will sometimes get together, track the rogue down, and tear him apart with their bare hands.
Now you understand my relationship with the NY cartoonist and artist communities! Science! It explains EVERYthing!
Those steroid dudes will die from their shrinking testicles once they impact their ventricles at their bodily cores.
What significance does that hideous thing at the top hold?
It's not misogynistic to say that women don't place the same importance on physical beauty.
Vive la difference!
Men have been selectively breeding for beauty for at least as long as there have been men. As populations became more mobile over the past couple of generations, the selection has become broader, though the criteria have not.
As the article notes:
"In men, by contrast, good looks appear to count for little, with handsome men being no more successful than others in terms of numbers of children. This means there has been little pressure for men’s appearance to evolve."
It's not the goodlooking guys who threaten our posterity. It's the rich guys. The accelerating trend toward concentration of wealth in fewer hands may make monogamy impractical. Morally, it's a communistic redistribution of 'tang, as I'm sure Eddie will agree.
Monogamy is a more democratic system for men, but at what cost to women?
One woman per man means a small handful of (typically, upper-class) women gain fabulous wealth while a large class of women (40% in the US) must reproduce out of wedlock or not at all. Even if they're not wards of the state, even if they marry someone from their own social class, few can ever hope for independence. They will have to leave their children & work.
If a wealthy man seeks a second wife, the state requires him to divorce his first wife & divide the equity gained over the course of the contract with her, breaking up the family & emotionally devastating the children, leaving 2 economically weaker families in place of one.
In a free country, women would have the right to follow their hearts. The competition for women would improve their status in society. The welfare of the family would finally be the responsibility of the family. There would always be at least one mom to run to when you have a boo-boo & with all the extra recreational shopping going on, the economy would be flush again in no time.
Sadly, it may be necessary to chemically castrate convicts, indigents & maybe even the pizza boy to avoid a perpetual roiling bloodbath of confused & angry males.
that was a great read with much interesting to think about.
In New York, we have more women than men. You can watch the women all dressed up on dates with messy guys who are wearing t-shirts and sneakers. It's clear who is more in demand. The only guys who can't be with hot women in NYC are the lowly cartoonists and circus clowns. This is why I stopped thinking of myself as a cartoonist years ago. Pick up a camera or a guitar and join the party, gentlemen.
"In New York, we have more women than men. You can watch the women all dressed up on dates with messy guys who are wearing t-shirts and sneakers. It's clear who is more in demand. The only guys who can't be with hot women in NYC are the lowly cartoonists and circus clowns. This is why I stopped thinking of myself as a cartoonist years ago. Pick up a camera or a guitar and join the party, gentlemen."
This really made me laugh-great stuff.
Here's the thing. There are far too many womens' magazines. Not many, but ALL of them systematically lower the confidence of women, and in turn, their standards are dropped.
It also extends to the way our society views single life. Women, unfortunately, feel socially awkward and a little bit depressed if they haven't "landed a man" by a certain age, and most are willing to accept what they can get instead of waiting for someone better to come along.
The ironic thing here is that it's not as though women can't identify a good man. But what typically happens is that they'll meet a guy who they really love, and instead of hook up with him, they keep him on board as a friend because they don't want to do anything to lose that guy.... like date him.
So, why are men so ugly? Because women have dropped their standards and these guys can get away with it.
- trevor.
Women are prettier because they spend hours every day making themselves prettier.
Men are uglier because they make no effort to better that aspect of themselves, while dismissing, degrading, or harassing those who do.
The fact that "metrosexual" is even used as a word at all is a sad commentary on our sexist society. The fact that, the majority of the time, it's used pejoratively, even more so.
No self respecting woman would find a metrosexual attractive though. Men should work on being more manly
Yes. Dating someone ugly, stupid, and abusive is a sign of self-respect.
fuck metrosexuals
metrosexual is a term normally applied to guys who are fashionistas and pamper themselves way more than an average guy should.
In urban lower middle class/lower class areas (cough real barber shops) you see guys in there all the time getting line-ups, fades, shaves etc. A good portion of this demographic spends more time on looks, and looking good, presentation. That of course is ingrained with the perpetual preaching of materialism in the music (run by rich white dudes)..but it has brought a sense of self-respect in some ways.
However there is a difference between, getting a clean short haircut, and then getting layered jet black, flat ironed salon hair style etc. etc. one takes longer than the other and one is technically more effeminate and questionable.
Most men age better than women. Wrinkles on guys add character, but on women they are frowned upon.
I think america has a big chunk of ugly people, but that is due to their diets and as mentioned an insistence on choosing mates on the basis of wealth instead of looks or quasi-eugenic motives.
Thank you, Jenny-- some people take me seriously and get angry!
David: I understand your point, and I would never claim the average heterosexual male does nothing to affect his looks in accordance with a male standard - gyms would go out of business were that the case.
But are they adhering to a male standard that's actually attractive, or is it one that affirms themselves as males conforming to an arbitrary social style? I mean, there's a difference there. Women are pressured by men to look a certain way - obviously, because heterosexual men find a certain kind of woman attractive. But the pressure to be a "real man" comes from other men.
What's the nature of it? Is it really a standard that stated heterosexual men find attractive in other men? It seems to me it's more about making a statement about the male gender than it is about looking attractive as an individual.
Most serious body builder guys are so into their body that they don't have time for women. So I don't picture all men turning huge to attract females.
I could be wrong, but I don't think most women feel attracted to obscenely huge muscles anyway.
Guys should take care of their looks. But metrosexuals make me sick.
Eddie, whene's your acting pamphlet coming out?
"speculation that monogamy is responsible for the current proliferation of ugly men"
That is correct and I have a theory on this. I don't know if it's conscious or subconscious but when the women lands a man, I really think she wants to make him look unattractive for anyone else. They fatten him up and make them lazy by tending to needs like a nagging mother. Truely it's the personality women crave and they distort the physical looks and some other undistinctive needs so once they snatch them, they deter any future mates.
BTW, I based my theory on an older married man I once knew.
*laughing* I just love how people try so hard to put everyone into their own little box and make them all behave, act, and think the way they want them to.
It is funny ignorant men who dont know shit about bodybuilding always use photoshoped pictures of bodybuilders to show them "how ugly they are ". Stupid. Get a real fact dude, they are not bodybuilders. There are no bodybuilders look like that in this world, because they are, SURPRISE, PHOTOSHOPED!!!
I know youre so stupid and idiot but really you dont know that? Idiot!!!!!!!
I agree 100%
I rather be with a metrsexual man because they are sexy like male actors. Mmm metrosexual men are basically pretty boys :)
I think body builders are ugly, I like tall thin men that have long muscles, like a runner or basketball player , stocky or buff or fat is not for me, but thats my opinion.
I'm a lesbian. Im so glad I don't have to date ugly men.. considering that's all there is. I'm sorry straight women. :(
If a woman said that to a man, then she is simply not interested in him, but doesn't want to hurt his feelings. Believe me a woman won't friendzone someone she likes, let alone LOVES
Haylee: Wow! Thanks for the comment, Haylee. What you said sounds right.
Post a Comment