How come Homo sapiens sapiens is the only species in which the female has to be visually spectacular, where as in the others it’s always the males with the bright colors and magnificent plumage and nice racks.
How come Homo sapiens sapiens is the only species in which the female has to be visually spectacular, where as in the others it’s always the males with the bright colors and magnificent plumage and nice racks.
Well, for the most part, the human male was once expected to do all the work: hunting, gathering and providing for his mate(s). What else did females have to do but sit about and look pretty, not only to attract the most prominent male(s), but to compete amongst themselves ?
*** How come Homo sapiens sapiens is the only species in which the female has to be visually spectacular, where as in the others it’s always the males with the bright colors and magnificent plumage and nice racks. ***
It’s an interesting question. Very. Just on speculation, we might look at what Montesquieu has to say in De l’Esprit des Lois concerning the relationship of climate to monogamy and polygamy. Could be that there is something to his observations which in turn would afford us insight into the drives at play. Apart from that, however, if there happens to be something to the idea that humans are unique among the animals, then perhaps another unique human characteristic, like for instance the very long childhood of the human animal, which also plays a role in this.
“How come Homo sapiens is the only species in which the female has to be visually spectacular, where as in the others it’s always the males with the bright colors and magnificent plumage and nice racks. “
Just be happy as a female homo sapiens you don’t go into heat.
The only colorful plumage male homo sapiens need are greenbacks.
We would not import European sports cars by the hundreds of thousands if males did not need flashy plumage. Be thankful your eye shadow doesn’t cost six figures.
brucella is inspiring a lot of people to step outside the everyday and look at things from a new perspective
she is a true olympic champion
If they had man lingerie the human natural order would have been reversed, which, that if ain’t happ’n’n’
How come Homo sapiens sapiens is the only species in which the female has to be visually spectacular, where as in the others it’s always the males with the bright colors and magnificent plumage and nice racks.
Well, for the most part, the human male was once expected to do all the work: hunting, gathering and providing for his mate(s). What else did females have to do but sit about and look pretty, not only to attract the most prominent male(s), but to compete amongst themselves ?
/ducks
That should have come with a “trigger warning”…simpering male feminists ahead.
*** How come Homo sapiens sapiens is the only species in which the female has to be visually spectacular, where as in the others it’s always the males with the bright colors and magnificent plumage and nice racks. ***
It’s an interesting question. Very. Just on speculation, we might look at what Montesquieu has to say in De l’Esprit des Lois concerning the relationship of climate to monogamy and polygamy. Could be that there is something to his observations which in turn would afford us insight into the drives at play. Apart from that, however, if there happens to be something to the idea that humans are unique among the animals, then perhaps another unique human characteristic, like for instance the very long childhood of the human animal, which also plays a role in this.
“How come Homo sapiens is the only species in which the female has to be visually spectacular, where as in the others it’s always the males with the bright colors and magnificent plumage and nice racks. “
Just be happy as a female homo sapiens you don’t go into heat.
The only colorful plumage male homo sapiens need are greenbacks.
We would not import European sports cars by the hundreds of thousands if males did not need flashy plumage. Be thankful your eye shadow doesn’t cost six figures.