Women are the more beautiful sex

...Really? Is this true? Or is it just perception?

My theory is that because men are the more visually attracted sex, women's beauty is noticed more than men's beauty is. I'm aware that in many species, there is a more beautiful sex and a plainer one, but usually, the more beautiful sex has features that are "decorative" and serve no real purpose other than mate attraction. Whereas in humans, there aren't any prominent "purely decorative" features in either men or women.

Perception. There are many gorgeous men out there, but the Female Gaze (to put it simply) isn't nearly as widespread as the Male Gaze.

Most Writers Are Male.

This includes writers of movies, tv shows, commercials, magazines, videogames, etc.

edited 20th May '11 9:13:24 AM by annebeeche

Perception. Beautiful individuals are spread across both sexes; of course, beautiful men are not exactly well received by some in modern day society.

Depends on exactly what species we're talking about here.

^ Oh, you.

Perception, as a general thing.

(Though as a personal thing, I admit I think female bodies are more fun to look at, but male faces are more fun to look at. (And no, I wouldn't want to combine the two, before someone cracks the obvious joke. >_>))

I'd guess that the following ones are a few of the reasons why this seems the common perception nowadays:

• Women's bodies tend to be more sexualized in our culture, probably as a consequence of men still having a (rapidly diminishing, as it should be) edge when it comes to power and money;

• Women tend to take more care of their looks than men do, and hence tend to be, on average, objectively more beautiful than men are;

• For some unfathomable reason, an heterosexual woman can compliment the aspect of another woman without this being too weird. However, an heterosexual man complimenting another man's aspect still sounds quite strange, especially in certain groups. Hence, women tend to receive more compliments than men for their looks, and this of course has a loop-back effect — if women's looks are complimented more than men's looks are, people will start thinking that women are more beautiful than men.

I think that this is a temporary situation — give it another few decades, and it will probably fix itself.

EDIT: also, not to be crass or anything, but there are at least two prominent "purely decorative" features in women that are not present in men. Most mammals do not have, and do not need, fat reserves associated to their mammary glands. Off the top of my head, I cannot find a "purely decorative" male feature — facial hair, perhaps, but that seems to be about neutral as far as female attraction is concerned.

edited 20th May '11 9:24:28 AM by Carciofus

I think it's more than just most writers are male or the male perspective, though. In the late 1800s and early 1900s (not sure about much earlier) there was a very healthy appreciation in literature for the male form. Granted, this time frame also housed Oscar Wilde and his influential tentacles.

Whatever happened to make men actively shy away from this appreciation? ...I have a feeling I read a good explanation somewhere in The Great War and Modern Memory but it's been so long I can't remember.

edited 20th May '11 9:26:59 AM by Bur

Men, on the whole, have fewer physical qualities to recommend them. A girl can be beautiful because of her figure (whether slim, curvy, or toned), her muscle definition (slack or firm), particular body part (breasts, legs, stomach, hips, ass), and, of course, because of her face, skin, and hair. A guy only has the overall size and shape of his body (a girl can be attractive whether too fat or too thin, but men usually look good only within a certain optimal weight bracket), his face, and his hair. Hygiene and style count for both, but if men overdo it, they go right back down into the unappealing category.

@Bur: Guys these days are afraid of catching teh gay.

It was around in Classical Greece too, but I'm not sure about the period in between.

EDIT: the appreciation, not the "contagious gay"

edited 20th May '11 9:31:24 AM by Yej

Actually, thinking about it, it seems to me that young women are perceived as more beautiful than young men.

After a certain age, however, the phenomenon switches directions: I may be mistaken about this, but it seems to me that a healthy, well-groomed older gentleman is perceived by our culture as more attractive than a similarly healthy and well-groomed older lady.

edited 20th May '11 9:35:15 AM by Carciofus

That's because elaborate facial hair is awesome?

You, lady, clearly have very good taste. My congratulations to your drunk consort .

It's definitely perception.

definitely.

Men by no means have fewer qualities to recommend them. A man can also be beautiful for the curve of his back, the length of his limbs, the lines of his stomach. There are a great deal of different degrees of tone, and from that an appreciation of finely crafted musculature or that of a delicate frame. The impression of raw strength can be beautiful. The veins on a man's hand. The lines of his thighs. The angle of his jaw.

edited 20th May '11 9:51:34 AM by Bur

Male preference in females is a luxury of culture. Biologically speaking, the courting sex - the one with the least expensive gametes, is the one that has to be beautiful. Humans are no exception to this. The fact that we've managed to turn this natural law of attraction on its head is just proof of the power of culture.

it's hard to shake up the status quo. A lot of us are still very uncomfortable with the idea of a woman being the mature, experienced member of the relationship. We also have a long tradition of women marrying up for economic reasons to the point that it's expected even if she earns good money. So age disparities remain skewed in the man's favour.

edited 20th May '11 9:01:19 PM by Gaiseric

Hmmm. I thought I read somewhere that men and women on the whole prefer to be presented with a picture of a woman. Or will at least look at one longer on average than a picture of a man on a webpage, but I can't seem to find where I read that.

"Men by no means have fewer qualities to recommend them. A man can also be beautiful for the curve of his back, the length of his limbs, the lines of his stomach. There are a great deal of different degrees of tone, and from that an appreciation of finely crafted musculature or that of a delicate frame. The impression of raw strength can be beautiful. The veins on a man's hand. The lines of his thighs. The angle of his jaw."

Sure, but those are generally the kinds of intimate details that you come to appreciate in a lover over time. I'm talking about more immediate and superficial recognition of what is "beautiful."

I'm probably just biased, but I find that in general, it's very easy for a woman to be beautiful, and it's very easy for a man to be ugly.

I'm probably just picky though.

^^Yeah, I doubt many woman are like "Did you see the curvature of his back? Dayum."

I'll agree that women are more what is recognized as beautiful. I don't like it, but I really can't argue against that.

I just don't think they are.

You'd be surprised. Not necessarily that phrase, and it may be that my friend and I have odd aesthetic taste, but when we go to the beach or a water park? Gorgeous, well-toned backs are mentioned frequently (if we're lucky). Along with the requisite "fuck I want to clean my shirt on his stomach".

edited 20th May '11 10:34:51 AM by Bur

A lot of women like looking at a nice ass though.

edited 20th May '11 10:32:35 AM by emeriin

But what else?

I remember this one Brazilian girl in my journalism class who's arms got my engine running.

Although that may have had more to do with her in particular.

And my being a horny teenaged bastard at the time.

edited 20th May '11 10:35:18 AM by HungryJoe