Why are women forced to ‘peacock’ esp breasts/ butt

I have been thinking about this recently, I want to get some thoughts out there and see any ideas.  i will give my own next post.

Here is the question: why is it that in so many animals the male is the one forced to peacock (literally in terms of the animal ‘peacock’, as well as being the colorful one etc) yet in female humans there is a very strong peacock effect for both sexes.  Normally in most animals the female, to be blunt, does shit in terms of getting a mate.  The males compete sometimes to the death to be able to impreganate a girl.

So…why is there a pressure on girls these days genetically to have bigger breasts, bigger ass, thinner waist etc?

‘Because guys want it!’ may be the simple answer, but biologically there is no where else the case in the animal kingdom, as males simple take what they can get.

Advertisements

20 thoughts on “Why are women forced to ‘peacock’ esp breasts/ butt

  1. My thoughts. “Apex fallacy”. 80% of females are competing against each other for the top 5% of men. Since these men will at most pick 2-3 of the females to support there is fierce competition to get the attention and affection of the top 5% of males. There are 20 women for every “real man” so that really puts the pressure on women to peacock for them.

        • Ok, but then the biological question is: is 5-10 generations (10 being very very generous) enough time for evolution to really make a notable difference in girl appearance? Even if the selective pressure was there.

          • It’s not, and we are not seeing a biological change. We are not seeing evolution at work, we are seeing cosmetics at work. We are seeing technology at work. We are seeing surgery at work. If it was evolution at work, we would not see the variation in breasts that we do. Breasts would all fall within a range that is 10-15% size variations like noses or ears that really do have evolutionary determinants. We see breast size that ranges from completely flat to DD balloons. If breast size had been a survival or reproductive determinant for long enough to matter, then the really big and really small would have been weeded out as “unfit” Just as ear size has been optimized, breast size would be optimized if it was an evolutionary determinant.

  2. “but biologically there is no where else the case in the animal kingdom, as males simple take what they can get.” – not so. Males are drawn to signs of genetic fertility in females in the whole animal kingdom. Just because we are not well versed in what gives the appearance of extreme fertility in female pigeons for instance – particular plumpness of breast, a well-turned beak perhaps – does not mean that the males of the species are not drawn to it.

    Female peacocking, as you put it, is simply women drawing attention to and exaggerating their genetic markers of fertility – child-bearing hips coupled with low obesity forming a good waist-to-hip ratio, large breasts signifying the potential for plenty of nourishing milk for infants.

    Peacocking in male animals works along the lines of “hey look, I’m such a healthy genetic specimen that I can afford to waste all these resources on these stupid feathers and still keep myself alive”

    • If you could give a specific example of a few animals I would revise my belief, but the fact is is that males compete for the attention of the female. Would sickly female get skipped over? Idk, probably, but in the animal world a typical female has males dancing, fighting etc for HER; therefore there is very little beyond a token pressure on the female.

      • What’s so different then in our society? 95% of the men, betas, kiss the ass and try to win the favour of the women. The alpha males, in animals that form social groups as primates, have their pick of the women, and will mate with the most fertile, as indicated by aforementioned exaggeration of genetic markers.

        As someone else pointed out, due to unrestrained hypergamy in human females, a huge majority of them are trying to win the favour of the few alpha males. They don’t get their tits and ass out for basement dwelling neckbeards.

        I’d say the general principle holds true.

  3. It would probably be disadvantageous for the mother that has to care for a bunch of offspring to have the bright colored plummage. Camo is better for survival of the species, at least for prey.
    I think human women have “peacocked” for a long, long time. This is NOT a modern phenomenon. Lets remember the dodo bird went extinct for women’s fashion. Corsets were ubiquitous for decades until the government requested the women turn them in during world war I for the metal. Obviously it depends on circumstances. If one is on the pointy edge of survival, one is more likely to worry about where to get the next meal than the measure of her waist, but there have been beauty standards women have tried to measure up to since the beginning of written history. Even slaves were decorated for beauty.

    • Hm…just tried to look up the dodo bird to confirm the above and I might be mistaken. Anyway, I seem to remember (from reading long ago) that SOME bird went extinct long ago to put plummage in women’s hats. Can’t remember which one.
      Women used to remove their toes to fit in small shoes, and their ribs for smaller waists. They ate tapeworms. Makeup dates back a long, long while too.

  4. I’d probably have to say it has a lot to do with the fact that we’re one of the Five Great Apes, and have more complicated systems of mate selection. Biologically, I believe humans as a whole (and women in particular) began using makeup to signal beauty/sexual availability because we are bipeds. For most other primates, whose preferred method of ambulation is on “all fours”, the labia and general hindquarters of both the male and female change in hue when copulation would have the greatest chance of resulting in pregnancy.

    Since human females have the majority of their genitals “hidden” since we walk upright, makeup serves (or at least used to serve) this purpose. My anthropology professor said that lipstick helps a woman’s upper lips to mimic the redness of her nether lips (labia), and women used to put Belladonna drops in their eyes to make them larger and more child like (presumably to invoke feelings of protection in their men). High heeled shoes are mostly worn by women now since they accentuate the hips/ass…but if you look at Renaissance fashions, heels/long toed shoes were also worn by men as phallic symbols, along with truly ridiculous codpieces. It’s said that Henry VIII (whose penis was small and syphilis infected) had a codpiece over a foot long!

  5. In polygamous societies, the alpha male simply takes all the women. In monogamous societies, he’s more likely to simply pick whoever he wants best. So monogamous societies will have more female competition.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s