Lots of Wodaabe on Youtube. Here’s one.
Actually, it looks like Bangkok’s governor wears a bit of makeup, and he’s no spring chicken. 60 years old!
But does he wear any on his asshole when he goes to the Donkey Blowjob Power Donkey Bar? And if so, how does he keep all those ping pong balls from sticking to it?
He’s probably incognito for that. 
I honestly don’t get make-up. I really really don’t. To me, using all that make-up, lipstick, fake eyelashes, and I don’t know what else to give a youthful appearance is the equivalent of a man showing up in a BMW while working at McDonald’s?
Thanks to all who have commented on the The Wodaabe tribe. This interests me. It seems to me that in our culture it is felt by many that men are visually attracted to women in a sexual way, but that women are not visually attracted to men in a sexual way. I’m not saying that everyone feels that way, but that generally people feel that way. In addition some people claim that that difference is somehow natural in that there are evolutionary benefits to men being visually attracted to women in a sexual way, but not for women to be visually attracted to men in a sexual way. I do not agree with that. It seems that in the case of the Wodaabe the women find the men to be visually attractive in a sexual way. If it is the case then it is evidence that the situation in our culture is not inborn, but instead is a result of environment and learning.
Tom,
MLS, while “Youthful appearance in women and power/status/wealth for men is in general a major attraction . . .” in many present day cultures, I do not see how that would happen “. . . for obvious evolutionary and survival purposes.” If these purposes are so obvious then what are they? Also, I do not see why youthful appearance in men and power/status/wealth for women would also have major evolutionary and survival purposes.
Now, I feel that “Youthful appearance in women and power/status/wealth for men is in general a major attraction . . .” in many present day cultures, but not necessarily because of evolutionary and survival purposes, but because that in most complex societies, at least in the past, women have been second class citizens. I also feel that in a society in which men were second class citizens youthful appearance in men and power/status/wealth for women would be in general major attractions. So I would agree with CatherineZeta that “And it’s sexist that our society sends the message that women need to be wearing makeup simply to look presentable” and I disagree with you.
Tom,
Perhaps the Wodaabe women are attracted to the men that can afford the most elaborate and expensive outfit and makeup. The Wodaabe men in thier “presentation” mode appear quite feminine to my eye but they don’t seem to be attempting to look like Wodaabe women. I wonder what the origin of thier look is and whether they consider it feminine.
I think women in general are sexually attracted to the same things men are (in some ways)…vigor, clear skin, symetrical features, healthy white teeth. I think the difference is that women are more likely to sublimate that sexual attraction to the desire to find a mate that seems likely to be a good provider to her and her children.
Okay, imagine a tribe of hunter-gatherers. Some of males prefer mates who are young and healthy. Others prefer mates who are wrinkled, grey-haired and have blotchy skin. Which group will father more children? Right.
Some of the females prefer to have sex with powerful men who are in control of things, who usually bring back lots of meat from the hunt, and to whom others defer. Other females prefer to have sex with the underdogs, the ones who get beaten up regularly and who are lucky to bring home the occasional rabbit. Which group is more likely to have lots of surviving children?
These instincts are deep in our inner being, along with our urge for lots of fat, sugar and salt.
MLS, I agree that in a tribe of hunter-gatherers people, both women and men would be more attracted to others who are young and healthy, but I feel that would go for both women and men. I feel that the genes of younger mates would be slightly more suited to a changing environment. Also it is not just a matter of “fathering” or “mothering” more children, it is also a matter of having those children grow up to be parents themselves. I feel that requires that both parents remain healthy into the future and a father that is young when the child is conceived would be more likely to remain healthy into the future as the child grows, just as a mother who is young when the child is conceived would be more likely to remain healthy into the future as the child grows. Also, one can turn your statement around and ask, some of the females prefer mates who are young and healthy. Others prefer mates who are wrinkled, grey-haired and have blotchy skin. Which group will mother more children?
In regard to your second paragraph, you seem to be assuming that it is the men who were in control of things in a tribe of hunter-gatherers. That may not be the case. If women tended to be in control then men who mate with powerful (not necessarily in regard to physical strength) women who are in control of things might be more likely to have lots of surviving children. I agree that in a society where women are treated as second class citizens there would be a tendency for women to be attracted to powerful men who are in control of things and not the other way, but I would not automatically assume that societies where women are treated as second class citizens were the typical society during most of the history of the human species.
My idea is that the tendency of sexual pair bonds to be of the older male, younger female type depends to a great deal on women having been treated as second class citizens in the recent past if not still today. This would mean that as women become more independent and assertive this tendency will decrease. This link goes to data that supports the contention that there has been such a change at least since the 1960’s. The New York Times > Real Estate > Image > Older Wives: Less of a Rarity
Tom,
River Hippie, you bring up a number of good points. I wrote that “It seems that in the case of the Wodaabe the women find the men to be visually attractive in a sexual way.” I do not know that for sure. I doubt that the Wodaabe women and men think that the men’s “presentation” is feminine. If they did it would mean that the women are attracted sexually to the men because they were feminine. I feel that the Wodaade idea of what is feminine and masculine is different than ours. I also feel that women in general have the potential to be sexually attracted to the same things in men, but roughly speaking social norms distort what is inborn. As to your last sentence I am not sure how much of that is “nurture” or “nature” again speaking roughly. I tend to be suspicious of claims that differences in behavior between the sexes and also the races are due to inborn tendencies.
Tom,
I read an article on the BBC today that you might be interested in, about how men stopped being so flamboyant and renouncing make-up, high heels, bright colours etc:
“It was the beginning of what has been called the Great Male Renunciation, which would see men abandon the wearing of jewellery, bright colours and ostentatious fabrics in favour of a dark, more sober, and homogeneous look. Men’s clothing no longer operated so clearly as a signifier of social class, but while these boundaries were being blurred, the differences between the sexes became more pronounced.”
So I looked it up— How to Teach Acrylic Art Classes - Synonym
I think you are missing my point, I hope not intentionally.
I am not talking about societal changes within historical memory. I am talking about INSTINCTS that are all but hard-wired into us, inheritances from our hunter-gatherer ancestors.
To a certain extent, yes, women would be atttracted to younger and healthier men as opposed to aged and infirm ones. Please keep in mind that in those prehistoric times, only a few people even lived to become what we would consider elderly. However, it is possible for a man to continue to father children for many more years than a woman can conceive them. A 35-year-old man can certainly continue to become a father for decades. If he’s lasted that long without succumbing to disease or injury, he must have some darn good genes. If he’s also in a leadership position, he’s going to be a good catch for a young woman. A 35-year-old woman also probably had some good genes. However, she’s not going to give birth to many more children.
Anthropology has found few, if any, societies in which women tended to be in control. Yes, there may be a few, but they are vanishingly rare.
The choices I’ve mentioned, (young and fertile women, strong and powerful males) have to do with not only parenting children but with helping to assure they survive to maturity. The man normally won’t be as interested in an older woman nearing or past menopause; the woman will prefer a man with a track record of being a capable defender and provider for herself and her children.
Yes, in recent history a young man might be attracted to a mature or powerful woman for a variety of reasons. But show your average man two picures, one of a young curvaceous gal and another of a grandmother, and chances are his hormones will react to the younger one. Yes, once the brain* in his head *gets working again, he may well decide that the young lady is a floozy or a bimbo, and that the older woman has more to offer (perhaps her experience, or even power), but that’s not the normal instant effect.
If you think women were not “second-class citizens” during most of human history, I would gently suggest that you need to study more history.
MLS, up until menopause, which currently occurs between the ages of 45 and 55, my understanding is that there doesn’t seem to be a great difference between the ability of men and women to produce children. Here is an article on declining male fertility in men Reproductive Health Issues. Both may have a reduction in fertility. As you pointed out “. . . only a few people even lived to become what we would consider elderly,” so I feel that not many women reached menopause and that it would have very much of an affect. Also, here is an article about “. . . mounting evidence . . . suggesting that as men get older, they face an increased risk of fathering children with abnormalities” Male Biological Clock - It Seems the Fertility Clock Ticks for Men, Too - Health News - The New York Times.
My understanding is that also occurs with women. However, a mother has to put in at least 9 months for a child, while a man only has to put in minutes. This suggests to me that, by mating with an older person of the opposite gender, women face a greater problem in regard to having survivable children than a man would, since they would have to put in more time for a child that may have abnormalities.
While it may be that anthropology has found few, societies in which women tended to be in control, it also may be that anthropology has found few non-complex societies in which men tended to be in control, during the pre-colonial period. Many native cultures have been severely disrupted by the colonization that started in the beginning of the 16th century, so evidence of women being in control could be hidden. Further, it seems to me that differences in status, power and wealth would be small in the small less complex cultures that most likely predominated before 10,000 BCE. So, it seems that would diminish the effect of status, power and wealth on evolution. You say that “. . . the woman will prefer a man with a track record of being a capable defender and provider for herself and her children,” maybe, but that would also be the case for men preferring women with a track record of producing and bringing up healthy children. As for menopause I brought that up earlier along with the possibility that if both women and men face increasing risks of mothering or fathering children with abnormalities the danger of young women mating with older men would seem to be greater, for the young woman than the danger of young men mating with older men. Further women also provide.
In regard to your second to the last paragraph, I do not feel that the feelings, even the instant feelings, of people in our current culture is evidence that people would feel the same in all cultures and I see the tables I linked to as evidence our culture is changing which in turn would suggest that differences in what is attractive to women and men is not completely inborn.
I agree that women have been second class citizens during most of human history if by history you mean written history, but written history only goes back to 4000 BCE at most.
Originally I was replying to CatherineZeta’s comment “I think that is an example of sexism though. And it’s sexist that our society sends the message that women need to be wearing makeup simply to look presentable.” I said I agreed with her. I continue to agree with her as I feel our society sends the message that even young women need to be wearing makeup simply to look presentable and young women don’t need to wear makeup to look young since they already look young. I see no obvious evolutionary or survival purpose for young women to wear makeup, but not young men.
Now, I might be wrong and you might be right, but I do not see how the evolutionary and survival purposes you cited make your claim obvious. I do not believe that I am wrong.
Lastly, I feel that you are beginning to get insulting in your last comment, suggesting that I may have missed your point intentionally and your “gentle” suggestion that I need to study more history. I do not need to study more history because you disagree with me. If you continue like that I will stop replying to you.
Tom,
Cinnamon, thank you for the link, I am always interested in how style and fashions change, as well as changes in social norms.
Tom,
Johanna, again thank you for the link. I have looked up the Lenape and found that their area included what are now New York City and at least the western part of Long Island. http://www.lenapelifeways.org/map.htm
I was born in Brooklyn and grew up in western Nassau County on Long Island. However, my ancestors were all Italian, Irish, Scottish or Walsh. I noticed on the map that the Canarsee were one of the Lenape group. I am interested in how the various neighborhoods of New York City got their names and it seems to me that the Canarsie neighborhood was named after the Canarsee tribe. I seem to remember reading that the Canarsee tribe was given their name by French settlers, because the members of the Canarsee tribe used a duck as their emblem and canard is French for duck. Of course I could be all wrong about this. Ducks are plentiful on Long Island and it would seem to me that they would have been plentiful in Jamaica Bay which is near where the Canarsee tribe lived. I would be interested in your thoughts on this.
Tom,
I think we are posting at cross-purposes. I’m talking specifically about the inborn, instinctual urges that all humans have. You’re referring to things that have happened in relatively recent history.
For example:
I’m not talking about “our current culture.” I’m talking about the fact that generically young and healthy women are more attractive to men. This is true of human beings, period.
Yes, there are cultural differences, but the underlying biology remains the same. Evolution takes a long time, far longer than the few years you’re referencing.
To take a completely different example: Long ago fat, sugar and salt were difficult to come by. Virtually all humans like creamy, sweet, and/or salty stuff. At one time (millennia ago) this was a positive thing. Today in many societies we can get those substances very easily, in quantities that are not good for us. We can learn to limit them and to prepare and enjoy other foods as well. That does not mean we as a group have lost the taste for sugar and salt. We have just used our brains to change our behavior.
In a similar way, when a man sees a young, healthy, post-pubescent female, his hormones and basic instincts say, “Hey, I’d like some of that!” (At least that’s what my husband, as well as the young men I used to work with tell me.) In our current culture most men have learned to also use the brain that is between their ears. That doesn’t mean they don’t have the basic urge. Therefore, many women choose to use various cosmetics to try to enhance their youthful and healthful appearance.
Yes, women are also attracted to healthy men. However, many women are also attracted to wealth and power. I’m sure you can think of many examples of young women pursuing older men. A twenty-something young woman could have something to gain by bearing the child of a powerful 60-year old man: status, money, and a good future for herself and her children. A twenty-something man could have zero chance of fathering a child by a 60-year-old woman. Again, please note that I am talking about basic biology, not culture.
Finally, getting back to the basic OP: Major signs of health, fertility and power that men can exhibit are often features such as muscularity and general fitness, which are not easy to change the appearance of by use of cosmetics.
Don’t want to extend the auto-hijack, but the origin of Canarsie that I looked up said it meant ‘fenced-in place’. I haven’t been able to confirm the actual etymon. The language spoken in western Long Island was Munsee; I don’t have access to Munsee vocabulary, but in the closely related Unami language the word for fenced-in place or fort is menaxksink—it was the Lenape name for Fort Duquesne in what is now Pittsburgh.
But please see Indian Names of Places in the Borough of Brooklyn (1901), p. 32–38. The resemblance to French ducks has been noted by others, though.
Let’s hope not.
Didn’t the Maya go through a period where men wore masks all the time?