sunspot Posted April 3, 2006 Posted April 3, 2006 If we look in nature usually the male is the more colorful or decorated of a species. But for humans, the female is more colorful and decorative. Both are connected to sexual attraction phenomena. Does anyone have an ideas of why the colorful lure switches for humans? It appears to show a cross sexual part of the brain being used for human animal sexuality.
wpenrose Posted April 3, 2006 Posted April 3, 2006 If we look in nature usually the male is the more colorful or decorated of a species. But for humans, the female is more colorful and decorative. Both are connected to sexual attraction phenomena. Does anyone have an ideas of why the colorful lure switches for humans? It appears to show a cross sexual part of the brain being used for human animal sexuality. I think it's 'cuz we don't have to draw predators away from the nest. Instead the female has to come up with ways to keep the male at home (or conversely, attract the male away from another home). Nature is a bitch. Dangerous Bill (on the other hand, the phenomenon of men dressing up in feathers and colored paint is or was found in lots of civilizations)
sunspot Posted April 4, 2006 Author Posted April 4, 2006 This phenomena may be cultural. In many Arab countries, the women are required to stay very plain with the males much more decorative. Some of the gay men in our culture are very decorative, many more so than the majority of the females. If one lives in the "hood", the decorative reverses between male and females.
bascule Posted April 4, 2006 Posted April 4, 2006 I don't see how we're genetically any different from most apes in this respect. Women being more ostentatious/vain then men is entirely a social construction, and the reason we don't see men becoming more showy is probably because people (or should I say other men) generally interpret that as a sign of homosexuality. However, let me reassure you that I'm generally quite colorful
alice Posted April 20, 2006 Posted April 20, 2006 Most of my boy classmates are much more colorful than me. Well, they are more meticulous than I am. They do all the things that girls are supposed to do...they powder their faces, comb their hair, put on a lot of perfume, they dress too long a time, take a bath for a long time too...and they are not gay. They are real men. So i guess it doesnt matter what sex you are. It's just the way a person is.
sabbath Posted April 20, 2006 Posted April 20, 2006 I think they do that to catch the female's attention alice. Because most of the girls we know think there's far more better things to do than attend to pompous boys who wore too much perfume it made us all swoon...and all for the wrong reasons. I think it's because of culture...
sunspot Posted May 7, 2006 Author Posted May 7, 2006 The Sally boy mentality is contemporary cultural. The gays made it possible and the marketeers saw a whole new group of easy targets. Alice I am impressed you have enough inner character not to rely so heavily of the superfiscial wrapper. Although for completeness, babe up every now and then, to see the shallow advantage.
dirtyamerica Posted May 10, 2006 Posted May 10, 2006 Sunspot, could you explain more the idea that women are more colorful than men? I also think that we are more attracted to women wearing make-up due to social reasons and not some genetic reasons. On a related topic, I saw a show about a scientist that theorized that mammary glands in homosapien females are full and round compared to other near species like apes, orangutans, etc....that have flattened glands for the purpose of attracting males. Very interesting and I do mean that in a mature way.
Prime-Evil Posted May 10, 2006 Posted May 10, 2006 I am not sure that humans are that much of an exception to the rule. If you include things like make-up and high heels, you should also include luxury cars and sneakers. You could separate out items that are recieved as gifts, or have the appearance of gifts, but that can also be part of the appeal. Males and females are both naturally seductive and provocative, sometimes in different ways, but often by using methods normally associated with the other. It is notable that moderation and frugality is attractive to neither males or females, unless done in a very sly and seductive way, implying an underlying abundance of sexuality and excess. Usually however, this ploy is about as subtle as a baseball bat. Modesty and moderation are rarely effective when they are genuine. Sex sells. Whatever sells, is sex. Like peacock plumage, sports cars are attractive because they are wasteful, not because they are functional or efficient. Even hybrids are mostly plumage. They get somewhat better fuel economy, but are still overpowered wastefully expensive inappropriate technology. Thus, they are attractive. We are so doomed. .
SkepticLance Posted May 10, 2006 Posted May 10, 2006 I am a wee bit confused. In sunspot's original posting, the question was : "Why are human females more colourful than the male?" One short answer is that they are not. Both male and female are made up, mostly, of drab colours. Or do you mean : "Why do human females dress more colourfully than the male?" The answer to that one appears to be mainly culture. On the other hand, we could ask : "Why are human females more visually attractive to the opposite gender than the male is?" In other words; males are primarily attracted to females by the way they look. Females are attracted to a particular male by a range of different features, of which appearance is just one. We could ask : "Why the difference?" That particular question might bring some more interesting discussion.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now