"Even the handsomest men do not have the same momentary effect on the world as a truly beautiful woman does." Jonathan Carroll

Today’s post deals with an aspect of our species that befuddles me – the asymmetry in gender attractiveness.  I think it is clear that beauty in a female plays a much greater role in our pairing, mating, dating, et. al., than beauty in a man.  Look at the publicity that female beauty pageants receive – “Miss Teen USA,” “Ms. Universe,” Miss America,” and so on.  Is there a “Mr. Teen USA” pageant?

In some way I understand this discrepancy at the intellectual level.  Books that deal with evolution and culture offer explanations that seem to make sense.  Guys want a healthy mate to greater guarantee the success of their offspring.  After all, offspring is the whole reason for mating so that the species can survive.  Health means clear skin, symmetry, big boobs, and youth to be able to nurse and care for the product of your loins.  However, I seriously doubt that most guys have those thoughts about health and offspring remotely in mind at all when they attempt to bed the gal.

Gals, the theory goes, want a provider who will be a good and steady companion.  They want themselves and their children to be protected from the saber tooth tiger and to have food on the table.  They want a powerful and rich man.  What he looks like doesn’t mean a damned thing.

So beauty in a female assures the male that the female will have healthy offspring.  Power and wealth in a male assure the female that her offspring will be protected and provided for.

This, I think, is the classical explanation of the gender’s perception of attractiveness in a mate – all rooted in our hunter-gatherer stage of cultural development and to some extent inescapable.

But not every mating results in an offspring.  Our species has worked hard to achieve this result.  (Should every child be implanted with a device – perhaps at puberty - which makes it infertile until switched off?) So why do we still remain so picky?  It’s just an orgasm, for crying out loud!  I think the reason is precisely that.  Assuming we chose the partner, our hard-wired circuits from our hunter-gatherer days deny us the pleasure unless we are “turned on” by partner.  Unfortunately, when forced, the body will often respond physiologically, but without the pleasure. 

So we still seek mates that would make a great pairing 15,000 years ago.

Do other species behave this way?  Does a male dog check out a female-in-heat before mounting her?  “Are her ears perky?  Nose warm?”  No.  He wants to get on with the job as quickly as possible.  No hunter-gatherer nonsense for him.

Does a stallion worry about the health of the mare?  Does he check her mammary apparatus to make sure his foals won’t starve?  

Does any species have a concept about attractiveness in the opposite gender besides mankind?  The answer is a definite “yes.”  For one, the tail feathers of a male peacock dictate his ability to sow his wild oats.  Poor feathers, no luck.  Birds offer other examples, e.g. bowerbirds.

Life for a beautiful girl must be very different from anything I’ve experienced.

2014 Lester C. Welch