I think the OP is assuming some form of monogamy as the standard relationship. Monogamy only results when the sexual marketplace is regulated (by law, by culture, by economics) to limit women’s freedom of mate choice.
In a relatively unrestricted sexual marketplace, the number of desirable men is always significantly smaller than the number of women pursuing them. The women are in competition with each other for a small number of men. Physical adornment is just part of the arms race.
In the absence of cultural and other coercion towards monogamy, they aren’t particularly interested in one-to-one relationships with average men. Left to their own choice, women will either not get married/have children at all, or have what are considered illegitimate relationships and children with the most desirable men they can get.
I’m going to be widely vilified for using a quote from a nighttime potboiler, but Scandal is one of the most watched shows for a reason. The deepest desires of much of the audience brought to life onscreen.
Periods make you bloated and afraid of leaks, leading many women to wear dark, loose, high coverage clothing for the duration and a short time after. When you are finally sure you are done with your period, you tend to break out the cuter clothes that you didn’t want to wear while you felt fat and leaky. This also coincides with ovulation.
No need to go back to the caveman to figure that one out.
Hm, many (most?) men don’t really care much fore makeup, they prefer a more natural look…
As for the OP question: even if we generously assume that there’s something to all of this evolutionary speculation and even without considering the benefits of having a father around, obviously it’s beneficial to attract a father with good genes. So women need to compete for the best men.
It makes no sense for men and women to forego pairing up because they can’t get the best mates. The beta women pair up with the beta men in long term relationships but then cheat with the alpha men. Everyone wins: the women gets access to the best genes for her kids but still has a father to help her out, the alpha man gets to spread his seed and the beta man also still has a fair chance at offspring.
You can swap the genders in the bolded part and the statement is equally true. So although I agree with what you wrote, I also think most of your conclusions would apply equally if you swapped the genders.
Actually I don’t believe this is quite true, IME. I think many men prefer a more natural look, yes but that is not a look obtained thru the use of no makeup at all. “Natural” is obtained thru specific methods of applying makeup the right way. I know I used to say the same thing. I don’t dislike no makeup at all but in all honestly well-done makeup that highlights a woman’s natural beauty is nice. Not too much, not overdone and not done with wrong colors. I think many men who think they like “no makeup” don’t even realize that the woman is wearing makeup.
Yes, it’s hard to know when you’re looking at a bare face and when you’re looking at very subtle makeup.
However, I suspect that when women (in real life) look like they’re not wearing any makeup, it’s usually because they’re not wearing any makeup, as applying it extremely minimally requires more self restraint than most people have.
When I lived in Spain I noticed that using (heavy) makeup was much rarer than in other places I’ve spent a good amount of time (most notably Holland).
And I’m always amazed by how different the women look in the Survivor reunion shows vs the episodes in the wild, where they’re not plastered over.
Really? It wouldn’t even have occurred to me that women on shows like Survivor might not be wearing makeup. What, you didn’t think that “reality TV” actually reflected reality, did you?
Yes, that’s how instincts work. People often say “Humans don’t do things because of instinct; we do them because we feel like it”. But the instinct is what you “feel like”. You feel less inclined towards sexiness when you’re not fertile because you’re not fertile.
But it’s not about what you “feel like.” It’s about the practical realities that period accidents happen and are not socially acceptable, so women choose clothing that minimizes the risk-- and those clothes happen to not be sexy, and by the end of the period, all those clothes are in the laundry pile and your sexier clothes are fresh and ready to wear.
The researcher could have saved a ton of money by having a simple conversation with a woman.
No, you feel less inclined toward sexiness because you’re bleeding out of your vagina and your uterus is trying to tie itself in a knot and you’re retaining enough water to put a camel to shame. I’m not wearing a cute sexy skirt…not because I don’t want to get knocked up tonight. I’m wearing it so you can’t see the fucking diaper I’m bleeding into.
Now, if you’re trying to say that nature “made us” to feel miserable during our periods so we don’t waste the energy having unproductive sex…no, I don’t buy it. “Nature” has gone to great lengths to hide our fertility status and get us to have sex for 23 days a month - 20 of which are infertile. So it’s an extraordinary claim to suggest otherwise for the last 5.
We don’t dress nice when we’re on our periods because periods suck and we hate you. Not you, in particular, you as in the whole world.
Are you a woman? I ask because every time I come across this sentiment, it always seems to be a man who says it. And usually the man saying it is will project his own personal preferences on to the rest of malekind when he declares that “men don’t care what women” wear. That’s wrong too.
As a woman who has spent the vast majority of her life single, I promise you that I could care less what other women think about my appearance. Women may consult with their girlfriends before wearing something or another, but ultmately, the goal for most (at least the heterosexuals) is to look attractive to men. “Women dress for other women” only make sense if you assume women are irrational actors who somehow are not subject to the laws of evolution. What benefit is there to impress women, when women aren’t going to helping you reproduce or raise your offspring or help provide for your survival?
A woman’s own standard for attractiveness also influences how she presents herself. A women who regards herself as pretty in high heels will wear high heels. Conversely, it is unlikely she will wear high heels if she doesn’t feel attractive in them. Regarding makeup, some women simply feel naked without a full face of paint; and so their actions have nothing to do with impressing men or women.
When I was in my 20s, I very certainly did dress for other women. To impress them, to compete with them, but most importantly to fit in with them. Which makes evolutionary sense. I was building my peer group ties, making the friends who I hoped would be my friends, my tribe, forever, and help me birth my babies (literally, there’s a midwife among them!) and raise my children. Tribal connections through female friendships *are *an evolutionary strategy.
Somewhere in my late 20s I stopped caring so much about what I wore when there were only women present, because I felt secure in that tribe. But still, I wouldn’t wear stilettos and miniskirts to go out with my hippie chick friends. There’s still some tribal affiliation shown by what I chose to wear when and with whom.
In my early to mid 30’s, I started dressing for men. My self esteem was pretty low, I was in a crap marriage and I had my husband’s permission to take other lovers, so yeah, I very much dressed for men sometimes. To attract men.
In my late 30s and now entering my 40’s, I’m in a much happier marriage. And now I dress for me. I like this.
Here’s the thing- men are choosy, but within limits.
Many (most?) men will go after the most attractive woman in the bar, but if they hit closing time, and the only girl who’ll go home with him is a 3, he’ll probably just go right ahead, on the theory that getting laid is better than not, even if the girl isn’t so attractive.
Women, on the other hand, don’t usually have that same mentality, and for the most part, aren’t looking to score that night. Some do, I know, but it’s not the default usual behavior.
So women and men dress up in hopes that the attractive members of the opposite sex will see them as more attractive/better than the others. There’s also a certain amount of status competition within each sex that goes on as well- for example, the guy in a suit (or whatever) will seem a tad more high-status than the guy in a t-shirt, shorts and flip-flops, assuming it’s not a Jimmy Buffett concert or something like that.
The big difference is that women continue to do this status-competition dressing when men don’t. If you had an all-male workplace, most men wouldn’t give 2 shits how they dressed, or how their coworkers dressed, but an all-female place would still be dressed to the nines.
No, they wouldn’t. I work in a predominantly female profession (I’m a librarian) and have been employed in several all-female workplaces. While some of my colleagues are certainly more attractive and fashionable than the stereotypical frumpy librarian, we’re not going to be mistaken for a Vogue shoot anytime soon. Get a bunch of librarians together and you’re going to see a lot of sensible shoes, low-maintenance hairstyles, and accessories purchased at local craft fairs.
I also went to an all-female college, and most of my classmates sure weren’t dressing to impress each other. It was kind of a running joke that you could tell when Friday rolled around because many of the girls you’d been seeing in sweatpants and ponytails all week were suddenly looking a lot more glamorous by lunchtime. We didn’t have afternoon classes on Fridays, so a lot of people were either meeting their boyfriends or going out.
I think this “women dress for other women” thing is mostly just an excuse some men use to judge women based on our looks while at the same time blaming us for being judged based on our looks.
WhyNot nailed it. Choosiness correlates to parental investment, and humans, feminist rhetoric notwithstanding, are a heavy male parental investment species.