Women Less Beautiful than Men

10 posts

Bronze Age Pervert
- A. Schopenhauer
Let us see this first of all in the animal world:

male and female monal pheasants: [​IMG]

male peacock: [​IMG]
female peacock: [​IMG] ....

male red cardinal: [​IMG]

female red cardinal: [​IMG] END OF DEBATE FAGS!!

male resplendent quetzal:
[​IMG] u mad bro?

male resplendent quetzal: [​IMG]

female resplendent quetzal: [​IMG]


Male bird of paradise vs. female bird of paradise: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/embed/6gAxbxxmYZ8

This is a spinoff of shoutbox debate. Schmeisser said this does not apply to people. Why not? Why is Schopenhauer wrong? And since Schmeisser is religious, God made Adam before he made Eve, and she is only a copy of him, how can it be said that she is in any way his superior, not to speak of the absurd idea, that God's original should be less beautiful than the copy.

In the state of nature women are quite ugly, fat, hairy, smelly creatures. Only civilization, hygiene, cosmetics, and science, man's inventions, can give women the illusion of beauty today. But even in this they come short, because their bodies are so obviously utilitarian.

Birds of paradise are the product of intense male sexual selection. There isn't that much birds do. So this selection shows up in more colorful plumage or whatever. People are more complex and have a larger behavioral suite. Intense male sexual selection in people will select for social dominance, aggression, extraversion, power, disease resistance, etc., not necessarily for the gracile, fine features that you probably have in mind as constituting human beauty. And this is reflected in cultures with greater male sexual selection.

The kind of gracile, fine features that you probably have in mind and that are generally considered beautiful are probably the product of greater female sexual selection as people moved into environments where male provisioning was more necessary and men could select more beautiful women.


Intense male sexual selection only partly selects for physical traits (which aren't necessarily the gracile, fine features that are "beautiful") preferred by the sex in short supply (females). It also selects for physical traits that help males intimidate or fight off other males (e.g., increased body size, higher bone density, larger muscle mass, higher testosterone levels, etc.).

Female sexual selection selects more for those physical traits preferred by the sex in short supply (males). Such traits will stimulate mate-choice algorithms or any mental algorithm that monitors the visual environment.

In most species, sexual selection is usually about too many males competing for too few females. This is because reproduction predisposes females to invest more in their offspring, particularly during pregnancy and early infant care. During these times of life, females are unavailable for reproduction and drop out of the "mate market." Unless males can match female reproductive investment, they can best serve their reproductive interests by inseminating other females. So, at any given moment, too many males will be competing for too few females.

Unlike the situation in most species, human males have the potential to match female reproductive investment, in part because their offspring are dependent for a longer time and in part because humans have colonized temperate and arctic environments where women are less able to provide for themselves through food gathering.

Team Zissou

It's nice to get the perspective of a raptor on human sexual selection practices. welcome hawk.

Beautiful Ganymede

This is a fascinating thread, and one which I heartily endorse.

First off, I enjoy bodybuilding... the development of the human musculature to its maximum potential. And to tell you the truth, men are truly beautiful, with very aesthetically pleasing physiognomies and anatomical structures. One could stare forever at the beautiful bodies of (healthy and well-proportioned) males.

Of course, what passes for female beauty is rather quite different... it is more or less testosterone-regulated, no aesthetic contemplation involved whatsoever. She shakes her ass and, provided she is thin, curvaceous and of youthful appearance, the urge from down below arises immediately thereafter. It's really not that complicated, which is probably why the art historian Winckelmann concluded that there is very little to say about female beauty.

Why are men more beautiful than women? Well, I could think of a number of reasons...

The male body is the only true subject of pure aesthetic contemplation, which is something that cannot be achieved with the female form. One cannot appreciate the female body without descending into some form of gross lewdness, so closely connected is the female anatomy with biological reproduction and the raw sexual desire and brute expressions of male social and physical dominance which this so often entails.

Also, the male is more angular and therefore consists of more well-defined parts, and hence is much better proportioned geometrically speaking and more symmetrical than the female. The structure of the male body better fits the exacting mathematical proportions of the golden ratio (1:1.618) or the perfect intervals of the harmonic scale (Canon of Polycleitos), because of its greater angularity and anatomical definition.

The male body is more wonderful and awe-inspiring than the female, by virtue of its impressive musculature, its powerful tendons and ligaments, its aggressive demeanor and more imposing stature. The male body is much stronger than the female, and therefore more durable and resilient. The female body is fragile, is more susceptible to disease and is therefore more easily destroyed.

What makes the woman supposedly beautiful is so intimately connected (if not identical) with her ability to successfully reproduce, gestate and rear offspring; this means that the female is more functionality, rather than form; whereas the male is more form, rather than functionality, meaning that the male form more closely approximates ideal beauty, because as Kant observed, an aesthetic judgment can not be rendered on utilitarian grounds alone, because in order for satisfaction or pleasure to be derived from the appreciation of the object under consideration, it's use value or end purpose must be fully realized, making it impossible for one to derive pleasure from a Beethoven symphony or a van Gogh painting.

Beautiful Ganymede

There might be some problems with my final Kantian objection, if one identifies the utility of art as the ability to derive pleasure and enjoyment from its mere contemplation or if one speaks of the beauty of utility (this may not be a problem if one conceives of an ideal beauty in a Platonic sense, as being pure form, free from the gross material substance entailed by functionality, but this has its own problems, such as infinite regress etc.). Of course, that still doesn't change the fact that, because the male anatomy emphasizes form over functionality, as opposed to the female, that the male is not a slave to his primitive bodily functions and is therefore beautiful in his freedom.

O noble Pandulf! I am in need of your guidance.

Beautiful Ganymede

I know I shouldn't beat this topic to death, but I just had to say this:

Why Women are not Beautiful

In this response, I want to further adumbrate my reasons for why male beauty is most obviously superior to female, based on an analysis of the human anatomy from a Kantian aesthetic perspective.

First, we must define what beauty is and for Kant, beauty is the spatiotemporal configuration of an object, the ultimate ground of its existence; being reducible to form, anything else which can be added to it, such as color or tone, is merely adventitious, and is therefore subordinated to the underlying organizational principle represented by the intrinsic structure of the object itself, its design properties.

A pure aesthetic judgment cannot be made on the basis of what is adjunct or incidental to the object itself, or else it would be an expression of agreeableness, and therefore of gratification, because it provokes within the individual subjectivity a desire to experience the same manner of ornamentation over and over again, to be interested in taking a sensuous delight in what is merely accidental rather than the aesthetic contemplation of the object being represented in a disinterested fashion. The same can also be said for those who wish to evaluate a beautiful thing on a teleological basis; the basis of all aesthetic judgments must be the subjective formal purposiveness of the object being represented, as an effect of the concept or its “forma finalis”, the possibility of which may be presupposed by the observer as the result of a “fundamental causality”, without being able to discern the content of the actual causal nexus itself. Those who find a thing useful or agreeable to the senses, have expressed an interest in the real existence of the object under consideration and have therefore compromised their ability to construct a pure aesthetic judgment based on the impartial observation of the subject. It is this disinterestedness of the aesthetic judgment which frees it from the personal idiosyncrasies of the subject and lends it an aura of universal social communicability. If the enjoyment of the object arises from the personal condition of the subject, than the delight which is derived from the contemplation of the object is no longer universalizable across individual circumstance; the subject, in his enjoyment of the object, must be detached from all personal interest so as to validate the aesthetic judgment which arises through the interaction of subject and object, so that all men, when exposed to the beautiful object itself, ought to experience the same pure, disinterested enjoyment as the subject in question.

From this it can be seen that the female form cannot be considered “beautiful” along Kantian lines.

According to Kant, the basis of all beauty is the underlying form which determines the structure of an object; as we have seen, the symmetry and higher organization of the male anatomy, embodies a form which is without functionality and other adventitious forms of extraneous ornamentation, whereas the form of the female is identical with her function, the two being inseparable; her sexual allure is the charm of concealment, which makes her beauty a relative and inferior copy of the male, for it is only by male acknowledgement through sensory perception and physical gratification that the female is called “beautiful”. This means that the male, being pure form, more closely approximates absolute beauty, exemplifying a mathematical precision (expressed algebraically as a + b/a = a/b = φ or the repeating decimal 1.6180339887, a product of the Fibonacci sequence) that can be found throughout the length and breadth of nature, from phylotaxis to the logarithmic spiral of the nautilus, from the geometry of crystals to the loftiest galaxies of the universe. Only in the male anatomy can one see a mirror image of the most intricate harmonies and majestic proportions of the universe.

That said, one characteristic of a pure aesthetic judgment is its disinterestedness, the contemplation of the object without any concern as to the real existence of the object itself, either by achieving gratification through its agency or assigning it some external value. But tell me, is it possible to derive such a judgment on the basis of the female form alone? Given the aggressiveness and impulsiveness of the male sex drive, no such judgment can be made. It is impossible to construct an idealized female beauty separate from female reproductive sexuality, because the structure of the female anatomy reveals the objective purpose of the female, is inherent within the design of her own body. As Kant explains, the evaluation of a beautiful object cannot rest upon utilitarian grounds alone, because it would constitute an enjoyment of the object as an end in itself, as an actually existing entity, compromising the disinterestedness necessary in the establishment of a pure aesthetic judgment; without the subtraction of personal interest from the contemplation of art, there would be no art so to speak, but merely gross physical enjoyments designed for the immediate physical satisfaction of some primitive bodily function, as the objective worth of a thing and the grounds for its enjoyment would be most intimately bound up with its use value as a commodity (its “end”), its consumption and disposability. And what of the universalizing social communicability entailed by a disinterested appreciation of an object as a manifestation of beauty? Such would be impossible, because the validity of an aesthetic judgment cannot be found within the personal idiosyncrasies of the individual subjectivity, but must be found in the free interaction between subject and object, an interaction which all men are capable of participating in by virtue of their ability to delight in beautiful objects.

To conclude, it is logically impossible that the female could be considered as an object that can be properly described of as being “beautiful”. Because form and function are inseparable in the female, she exhibits a formal objective purposiveness ; not only is her body purely utilitarian, but it has a determining ground, biological reproduction, and is also characterized by a definite end, pregnancy and the rearing of offspring. In order for an object to be beautiful, observes Kant, it must be purposive without manifesting a definite purpose; the object destined for aesthetic contemplation is beautiful precisely because its purpose is unknowable and therefore cannot be the subject of cognition. This is why the female cannot be the object of aesthetic contemplation; this is why the female cannot be considered “beautiful”. Her purpose is obvious, whether seen from an external utilitarian perspective or as the realization of an internal purposiveness which results in a definite end; it is a part and parcel of her very being; in the female, form cannot be disentangled from structure; although this may come across as tautology, she is her own teleological judgment and therefore incapable of manifesting even the slightest trace of beauty.

Thus, it is only the male, whose anatomy is not informed by any necessity of insemination who closely represents the beautiful to its fullest extent; only his body is subject to his own volition and his own faculty of rational judgment, not some primitive urge of reproduction. Man exercises absolute control over his own physiology, and therefore no such internal purposiveness or utilitarian ground can be associated with it. Man is beautiful precisely because he is free, free from the tyranny of the body and the gross material substance of an empty physical existence. It is the beauty of the male form which points to a higher existence, one pervaded by transcendent forms which only the male approximates in all his splendor.

Beautiful Ganymede

I think this needs to be said too. Winckelmann observed that those who could only appreciate female beauty, and not male, are incapable of appreciating great art. And this is true, because the greatest art is male. And furthermore, has one not seen these men, who are only enraptured by female beauty? They are brutish, cold, and selfish men, Neanderthals who think that high culture is worthless and that the life of a narrow-minded specialist is everything. They are insensitive boors, 9-5 working stiffs, insufferable bigots who proclaim some religious fanaticism or dogmatic scientific rationalism as revealed truth. Male beauty is a delicate flower in the morning dew, and yet the average Joe will even trample over this to cuddle with his monstrously overweight girlfriend or morbidly obese wife who endlessly drinks beer after beer and busily stuffs her big mouth with bags of Doritos.


Male beauty also runs a gamut from delicate to hardened musculature. Younger males (late teens to early twenties) often seem feminine in form but may grow into a more masculine look. Much is said of the beauty of androgyny but this almost always in respect to males. This is because the masculine and feminine, as principles, are inherent in the male being while the female only contains the latter. The bisexual principle (regardless of the sexuality of the individual) is of a higher order. The male can give and receive pleasure, can understand the pleasure of lithe submissiveness as well as the warm embrace of power. The male is versatile and independent and the appreciation of his beauty involves a great deal more subtlety than a woman. As mentioned above, the sexual appeal of a woman is quick and obvious - as it should be to serve a utilitarian purpose. To paraphrase an old Muslim saying, "Women are for babies, men are for pleasure."