So, is there some stadard evolutionary explanation why with so many animals it’s the male that has the mating display of color or hair, while it’s pretty(!) universally agreed that the human female has it all over the male in artistic display for attraction purposes. And no, I’m not just taking into account make-up; I mean inherently.
They told me in grade school that the females of many species are dully colored because they have to stay put and tend the newborns. If they were brightly colored, then the would attract predators to an easy target of either the kids or themselves as they tried to protect the kids.
Which says the guy human should stay home and take care of the kids?
I take it, overall with evolution, there are trade-offs on who shows and who looks. Thus different strokes for different focuses.
Ray (Peacocks are so damned self-admiring they won’t even get out of the way of your vehicle.)
Cornflakes is (are?) right on the female side in most cases.
In the male cases, the female always gets her choice of males. The bright color and display attractions of the males help show how healthy he is, how strong and viril. Basicly its saying to the female “look at me! you will not find someone better to give you healthy strong babies”
first impressions are the key, in the animal world the female cares not about how sensitive the male is. rarely do they pick the male that likes to cuddle and talk afterward :).
“Boy, wouldja get a load of the cloaca on that one”? -Cecil Adams, october 8 1999
…and I just realized that everything I typed really had nothing to do with the OP! 
I’m sure if you asked the average peacock, he’d tell you that it’s the peahen that’s the really attractive one and he has to go around dragging all those big feathers on his butt.
In other words, it’s humans that say the human female is more beautiful than the male. I’d guess that’s because traditionally males were in charge and decided what was beautiful and what wasn’t.
Read “Sundials” in the new issue of Aboriginal Science Fiction.
www.sff.net/people/rothman
[disclaimer]The following statements are anthropological in nature. I don’t want any of you thinking that this is how I view women. I’m just trying to tie the OP in with some pseudo-scientific reasoning. [/disclaimer]
An important consideration here is that we’re dealing with primates. In the world of apes and monkeys, males don’t put on mating dislpays – they fight for dominance in the troop. The criteria can be who’s biggest, baddest, has the most silver fur on his back, or who has the reddest/bluest nose. But this is all determined by the males themselves – the females just have to put out for whichever male is dominant.
The “come do me now” mating display comes from the female. Their sexual organs become all puffy and swollen, along with the usual pheromone output. Watch a nature program sometime, and you’ll see the male pawing all over these females from behind. Apes don’t walk upright, so this buttwards display by the females works fine.
It’s believed by many anthropologists and primatologists that human females’ breasts developed as sexual lures. I’m pleased to say that they work just fine in that regard. Since humans walk upright, the swollen - vulva - sticking - out - behind - the - female trick doesn’t work. Humans see one another face to face because of the upright stance. Humans are always capable of matnig, unlike other species that go through mating cycles. Thus, breasts are a perfect come-hither.
It has been further suggested that the cleavage between the breasts mimics the cleavage between the butt-cheeks (sorry, can’t think of a better way to put that). I don’t know how much credit I’d give that theory, but it’s there.
I don’t mean to suggest that breasts are the only factor in human female beauty. They’re just a good example for which I’ve heard serious talk. As to the rest of a woman’s perceived beauty, it follows the primate pattern. Males fight for the right to mate, which explains why so many of us are aggressive pricks, and nice guys like me can’t get laid. Females are then selected by those males.
Lastly – beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Female hippos probably look really sexy to male hippos. And who hasn’t heard women talking about how hot that guy is, or how cute that one is? The fact is, given no special motivation, men will stick their dicks into just about anything. It’s to a woman’s advantage if she makes an effort to stand out from the crowd if she wants first choice of dick. Over time, this attempt to attract is what we consider attractive (duh!) and beautiful.
That’s all for now. I thought I had something more profound to say, but this will have to do.
–Da Cap’n
“Playin’ solitaire 'til dawn
With a deck of fifty-one.”
Nothing surprising. Take a look at how pretty a woman is before she marries. Cool, huh. Then after that, back to the old look.
This has nothing to do with evolution since there is no such thing. God made men and women to be attracted to each other.
Don’t feed the trolls.
Yeah, what Doug said.
Cap’n Crude, may I use your disclaimer?
If’n ya feel the need to, Flaky, go for it.
–Da Cap’n
“Playin’ solitaire 'til dawn
With a deck of fifty-one.”
The fact that Desmond Morris once said something does not make it so.
Designated Optional Signature at Bottom of Post
True, AHunter, and I’d never say otherwise. However, there’s some logic to the train of thought.
Among mammals, humans are the only ones who walk upright. Yes, apes waddle around occasionally, but their normal gait involves a lot of knuckle-dragging, much like fratboys. 
Among mammals, humans are the only ones whose females have permanently-distended mammaries. Dairy cattle don’t count; they’re kept in a state of permanent lactation, so their udders are always engorged.
I admit that I haven’t proved causality here. I also admit that Desmond Morris isn’t always right. Heck, despite my adamant belief that it’s the only ecological model that makes sense, I admit that evolution is only a theory. Even so, my previous post stands, IMHO.
–Da Cap’n
“Playin’ solitaire 'til dawn
With a deck of fifty-one.”
Not all humans have the females dress up. Men used to wear powdered wigs and base. I don’t remember the source but certain Indonesian (or that area), Amazonian, Chinese, and African groups have the men wear makeup to attract a mate.
HUGS!
Sqrl
Gasoline: As an accompaniement to cereal it made a refreshing change. Glen Baxter
OK, Cap’n Crude, fair enough…I have only my own gut intuition to go on, myself.
I think males are inherently “slutty” – that an extremely wide range of females are sufficiently attractive to us to cause us to desire them sexually if proximity, time and opportunity present themselves. In light of that, I think the key evolutionary advantage would be anything that tends to attract attention. Which explains a lot of really silly female attire, when you think about it.
Most of the characteristics that comprise human female beauty (as established by various research projects) are characteristics that are seen as attractive by women as well as men, and not merely when they inher in women’s bodies: buildings, laptop computers, table knives, and automobiles are seen as more attractive when they display curves, symmetry, smooth lines, and smooth gradations of color with intermittent highlights. (well, OK, I haven’t seen too many table knives with intermittent colored highlights, but as a grab bag of generalities it works).
Designated Optional Signature at Bottom of Post
OK, Cap’n Crude, fair enough…I have only my own gut intuition to go on, myself.
I think males are inherently “slutty” – that an extremely wide range of females are sufficiently attractive to us to cause us to desire them sexually if proximity, time and opportunity present themselves. In light of that, I think the key evolutionary advantage would be anything that tends to attract attention. Which explains a lot of really silly female attire, when you think about it.
Most of the characteristics that comprise human female beauty (as established by various research projects) are characteristics that are seen as attractive by women as well as men, and not merely when they inher in women’s bodies: buildings, laptop computers, table knives, and automobiles are seen as more attractive when they display curves, symmetry, smooth lines, and smooth gradations of color with intermittent color or shape highlights. (well, OK, I haven’t seen too many table knives with smooth gradations of color, but as a grab bag of generalities it works).
Designated Optional Signature at Bottom of Post
Damn cgi. Never trust a cancel button. The second version of the dual posting was the intended release version.
Designated Optional Signature at Bottom of Post
Cap’n Crude, I agree that the idea of women’s breasts being a sexual lure seems plausible. But I don’t see why they’d have to imitate the shape of butt cheeks. In the time it took for evolution to give us upright gait and to give women the breasts they have now, men could easily have adapted to a different-looking sexual stimulus. (Yes, even men could have done that!)
Me, I don’t feel attracted to female apes’ butts very much.