I am a great admirer of Desmond Morris – the animal behaviourist and human observer. He tackled the whole business of why females wear make-up and what that make-up is doing.
Women wear make-up to make themselves attractive.
Women wear make-up to signal their availability.
Women wear make-up because it became a habit.
So let us start with a standard heterosexual girl. She wishes to make herself attractive to males and signal her fertility.
Her tactic is to attract in males and then select the one that she believes has the characteristics she would most like to pass on to her offspring. That is the reason for sexual attraction.
So what might she do?
She might redden her lips to make them appear fuller and redder.
She might use eyeliner and mascara to make her eyes look bigger.
She might use rouge to redden her cheeks.
What does all this meant to achieve? Why is it attractive to males?
According to Desmond Morris this is a mimicry of what happens in sexual arousal. During female sexual arousal blood flows to the lips and cheeks making them red. The eyes dilate and widen making them look bigger.
So is make-up merely mimicking sexual arousal?
To supplement the effects of make-up the female uses bras and cleavage to accentuate her breasts, clothing to accentuate her child-bearing hips, high heels and short dresses to accentuate her legs and perfume to create a heady musk.
How does that work?
Well perhaps it appeals to male vanity? They assume that this sexually aroused female is responding to them and react accordingly.
Desmond Morris? The TV bloke with the terribly, terribly posh voice? A public schoolboy type trying to tell us how women think and the reasons why we apply our make up? How ridiculous. I would think he’s bottom of the pile with such study. He’s never discovered anything and simply just compiles compendiums of known previous studies from real anthropologists and he ends up looking very clever because he’s on TV. I can recall another unconnected ridiculous claim he made with card playing gamblers where he stated that those dealt a bad hand stare at the cards for longer. Maybe he does, but he speaks for himself on that. I’ve always regarded him as a sort of seedy second rate chancer.
You have made some fundamental errors of judgement. Your claim that “Her tactic is to attract in males and then select the one that she believes has the characteristics she would most like to pass on to her offspring. That is the reason for sexual attraction.” is very much flawed. You have forgotten that women like sex for sex’s sake which has nothing to do with the eventual production of offspring. Nothing more need be attributed to that.
We also know that women (and men) have been adorning themselves with makeup for thousands of years and the reasons for doing so are not only for sexual arousal purposes. It is believed though that the practice of reddening the lips is to imitate an aroused vagina, although I very much doubt most women realise this and many of them would perhaps refrain if they did.
If there’s one thing any woman would not wish to accentuate that would be her child bearing hips, which only also accentuate her large sized behind. Similarly for the reasons for high heels and shorter skirts which take the focus of attention away from a larger size of behind. For those without the problems of a large behind then they just look even better.
With this blood flow thing during arousal the same thing happens to a male with blood flow to his lips and cheeks and his eyes also dilate. It’s not just a female reaction. Such arousal is not gender specific.
Why do I get the impression that this could only be written by a man and one who is out of touch with the subject, has very old fashioned views almost as if we were back in the 1950’s and isn’t particularly worldly wise with such feminine related matters. It’s slightly comical and I’m reminded of dear old Hattie Jacques from Carry On films. LOL
Well thank you for that. It is always good to hear from a female perspective.
You are wrong about Desmond though – his accent a product of his age. He was a surrealist painter, zoologist and expert on human and animal behaviour of some renown.
I think you are also wrong about large posteriors. Males are attracted to them – see Hottentots and sexual selection for evidence – oh and Kim Kardasian.
I think you are also wrong on the reasons males and females like sex. It is never for its own sake. There is always a biological reason. Sex is for reproduction nothing else. It is used to create relationships. The pleasure is purely the pay-off. You are obviously not a biologist.
Most of our behaviour is subliminal. We are rarely aware of the real reasons for the things we do.
Arousal in males is different. It does not produce the pronounced blood flow to cheeks and lips that it does in females. What attracts females to males is an entirely different set of characteristics. I might do a post on that later.
Yes the reddening of lips is quite likely a mimicry of the vaginal labia. Just like the protruding breasts are a mimicry of the buttocks. Both as a result of our recently acquired upright posture.
Fascinating isn’t it?
Oh – and BTW – nothing to do with being old fashioned – all to do with basic biology.
Yes, and there is only one perspective to be got concerning women, that from another women and not some stuffy, sexually retarded science swot. Could It get worse!
Can’t you listen just once to a woman who knows? I’ve been married three times, been around the block and seen more pricks than a second hand dart board. You can take your “basic biology” and stick it down your long johns. I read your bio. You got hooked up with a girl from school or something at the mature age of 18 and that was it. One partner. Hey Mr. Experienced, look who thinks he’s the Jimi Hendrix of the ladies! LOL And you want to talk about the reasons for sex? No wonder you talk in terms of “basic biology”. Seems to me that you learned everything you know about sex from a book! How very English of you. Are you in all honestly trying to make a valid case? You’re living in an imaginary dream world of your own imagination and that of that silly toff you’re in all too much admiration of. I know that if that toff git saw a real woman he’d break down in fear. Nothing have I ever heard from Morris was news to me. It obviously was for you, a mere biologist, but not for me who worked in publication of women’s magazines for many years. You want to know about human behavior and the why’s and where’s of makeup? Bring yourself on and I’ll give you an education. I’d have to pretend that you’re still 18, as it seems that you’ve learned very bloody little since. LOL
You think sex is only about partnership and finding mates. No it is not. You know nothing about women. You know the phrase never judge a book by its cover? Well similarly with your wife, never judge her with other women as you’ve simply no idea at all what these other women get up to. You don’t know very much about real life, do you? It’s not all about happy families and grandchildren. The other half drink, do drugs, party and have lots of partners for sex with no strings attached. They live a little. There the one’s having a really good time. They don’t ever tend to hang out with the squares. They very probably don’t do anything of the sort that you do.
As for Kim Kardashian (as you couldn’t manage to spell her name), she’s a factory manufactured corporate sponsored slut with not a lot else going for her and what little there is has nothing to do with class. She has none, she’s trailer trash. By all means be impressed and enjoy looking at her, but I really don’t think that you will know anything at all about her, except that she owns three brain cells. You vaguely know her name and there it ends.
You weren’t listening. The reddening of the lips is not as you put it “quite likely”, it is a fact. You can find out where it originated from for yourself as you need to be doing a bit more on this rather than ride the coat tails of Desmond posh-knob Morris.
No, you are wrong. Breasts are not any such mimicry of the buttocks. Protruding breasts are fundamentally for comfort and longevity of form. That’s why we wear bras. It is a lot more comfortable for us than two heavy glands swinging about. – at least for those women with real breasts or more than a B-cup size. Bras also prevent the skin from unnecessary stretching which ages the look of breasts far sooner than need be. No woman looks forward to that event, not even the Ann Widdicombe’s of this world.
We have evolved since our ape like form. At least some of us have although I can’t speak for many men that I’ve had the misfortune of wasting very valuable seconds of my life with through my work. I suppose the money is the payoff for that loss.
I really don’t think your stuffy old science has any place in the modern world of relationships and feminine sexuality. Leave that to your rodents in cages or the sorts of things biology people are so prone to be doing. Which is probably why they need a book or the likes of Morris to teach them to learn how to seduce women. Poor things.
Now stop being such a silly old gloating fool and put it back in your trousers before your wife catches you gawking at pictures of Kim.
Jane or who you really are – well thank you for your extremely rude, ill-informed and rather stupid response. Obviously your brain cell doesn’t work when it comes to biology and your social skills need tending to.
This is all very interesting! Yet I hear a lot of men say they do not like women with make-up. A lot of men say they like the “natural look”.
Increasingly in our society, men are wearing make up as well — and maybe men are being pressured to wear make up. Men are also shaving their chests, legs, etc.
Also, nowadays adornments go way beyond makeup. Adornments include tattoos and piercings, etc. I wonder if that is supposed to be some sexual thing too?
A lot of interesting points Christine. I am one of those men who do not like make-up. I think it looks like a mask. Yet my wife claims that I respond to women who are wearing make-up. I guess there is a separation between subliminal and conscious thoughts.
I think there are layers of other considerations regarding make-up. Some of it is cultural. Some of it is fashion. Some of it is to shock or stand out. Fashion is a different thing isn’t it?
Men wearing make-up is equally complex. Then there is piercings and tattoos. It would be interesting to investigate all that.
It was hardly a stupid response considering it’s yourself that needs a whole lot of guidance on this topic, one that you are not qualified on and should never have gone near. What were you thinking? You simply don’t seem to understand that we’re no longer Ape-like and sniffing each other from the behind. Wake up there that man!
You really are a complete fuddy-duddy. You seem to think it’s relevant to relate millennial’s old concepts to the modern age. We’re no longer cave dwelling and smearing ourselves with animal-kill blood and faeces. Female make up styles are a whole other language in itself and one that will take a lot of explanation.
Without a doubt everything you have said so far is so far from our reality.
Go and ask your wife to read all this and let her put you right. I dare you.
You can’t always educate the ignorant. That’s a fact.
But you’re hopelessly wrong again – our behaviour is exactly the same as cavemen. Strip the veneer away and that’s what you’ve got. We go sniffing around.
Your lack of understanding of human behaviour is the problem – but hey – that’s your problem. Thanks for contributing.
What a pathetic response. A whimper of a response from a non-qualified sexual whimp.
If there ever was the one thing that you are not anything near qualified to do would be to educate me on any matters relating to female sexuality, including the practice of the application of makeup. We’d laugh you out our production office all the way back to the car park. Wake up cave man!
You think in simple cave man terms. Psychologically you’re still back there in your cave. I’m not and neither are the vast majority of women folk.
Go back to your comment where you seem to think that women only adorn themselves for sexual reasons. I think you’ve been reading too many Playboy magazine’s and have developed a very unhealthy and sexually corrupted mindset.
You also think that women are only looking for partners. You can’t seem to grasp that many women only want casual sex. When was the last time you had casual sex with someone you don’t know? Probably never I suspect. You’re simply in no position to discuss this. You are neither qualified or nearly experienced enough. The fact of the matter is that you have no experience at all.
Why is it therefore, that amongst my colleagues and myself, that we have all spied attractive looking men in a bar, but when they open their mouths and out flows this appalling London-Estuary accent all such attraction disappears into a puff of smoke?
Or are you so male-pig-headed to even consider that detail? I think so.
You’re probably one of these men that sinks himself six pints then begins to think that every woman wearing makeup he lays eyes on is a beauty. There never will be a shortage of such fools. You can never educate a man who has little or no understanding or experience with a variety of the fairer sex.
I bet you’ve never been anywhere near a coloured lady or an Asian? You wouldn’t know where to start. You wouldn’t even know that a black woman has more developed muscles in the walls of her vagina than a white woman has. It’s akin to the muscular development of their bottoms, which is obvious to all on sight. But a black woman’s vagina is capable of rigorous squeezing of the penis and the effects on a man are beyond his average descriptive powers. But you don’t know anything about any of that. You could only imagine.
You need an education on life first of all, then we can teach you the intricacies of women and the variety of sexual pursuits. I’m thinking that might take some time as you strike me as one very old fashioned and monogamous missionary-man from where I’m standing. I bet you’ve got her indoors fetching your pipe, slippers and paper for you.
What a nasty bit of stupidity, full of ageism, assumptions and crap.
Your ignorance on science, psychology and human behaviour is glaring. Just a lot of personal crap from an arrogant woman.
I don’t need lessons from you on sex thanks. Try keeping to the topic. You’re out of your depth.
Of course I don’t think that women just paint themselves up for one reason. Of course women want casual sex. Dork!
I’m not talking about that at all. Imbecile. I’m talking at a level well above that. I’m talking about primal psychology – obviously beyond you. I was not discussing sex. I was discussing psychology.
I have this theory that the obsession with tatts and piercings is because the young people nowadays would like to somehow get back to Tribal roots. (All humans are somehow Tribal.) But there is no real expression for that in modern culture, so they are reverting back to the body art of ancient tribes… Not that they think of this when they are getting tattooed, but this is what I believe.
There definitely are layers of considerations, cultural and otherwise, regarding makeup. I also have a theory that our modern culture finds men under scrutiny and objectified — as women have always been — hence pressure to ‘look good’ and wear makeup. Then again. I like to say — Mick Jagger and David Bowie had the market on this years ago, haha! Anyway, a fascinating discussion 🙂
An interesting view Christine. We like to think of ourselves as in command of our reasoning, civilised and removed from primitive urges, far removed from our ancient past, with free will and choice. In practice the latest research seems to indicate that we are products of our environment, culture and upbringing with very limited control of what we think and how we act, with very tribal dispositions and that most of our behaviour and attitudes stem from subconscious motivations.
And yes – men are becoming objectified. I think that is symptomatic of the change of power from male to female in our society.
I got a lot of these ideas from the late great Joseph Campbell. 30 years ago he talked about our tribal mentalities and where society was going, then I saw this stuff happening before my very eyes. We are not so modern and sophisticated as we think, and a lot of our decisions do come from the subconscious, It is a topic worth exploring 🙂
The more we find out about human behaviour the more chilling it becomes. It seems that the subconscious rules and we still have the same mentality as we did in our early days. We still are tribal and behave in primitive manners. Our civilised sophistication is a veneer. It’s really very basic.
One of the concerns, on a bit of a tangent, is that politicians and business has recognised this. They use algorithms to target us with increasing sophistication. Noah Yuval Harari wrote two books that were completely mindblowing – Homo Deus and Sapiens. Two of the most interesting books I have read. He explains it well.
Hmmm, I shall have to check that author out!
Christine – The Naked Ape and Human Zoo were very good.
Yep Christine. It is a fascinating discussion. Human psychology and behaviour never ceases to be fun.
Men have been objectified since the cultural and fashion revolution in the 1960’s, it’s not a new concept. Any library’s magazine archive will only emphasise that.
Mick Jagger and David Bowie only wear/wore makeup on stage. As did Elvis before them. It’s also for camera and lighting purposes. Bowie only wore that full facial makeup for 18 months until he killed off his Ziggy Stardust character.
Facial makeup has been used for theatre and stage production for thousands of years.
We do know that the ancient Greeks wore white face masks to emphasise facial features from a distance.
That is true Barbara – but for different biological/psychological reasons to what has gone on with females. I find Morris’s assertions on the use of make-up in women being the result of our upright stance being very plausible. They certainly are interesting and worthy of discussion.
Barbara – that is true. But I was confining myself to certain female make-up which has an interesting resonance. Of course both women and men use make-up for other reasons too. We have seen a lot of that in recent times. Some, in both male and female, has shock value, some used to enhance features and some to make people look younger or more attractive. A different track to the one I was heading down.
It’s very much yourself that’s intellectually challenged when you seemingly can’t extract yourself from the cave and even begin to think post-Neanderthal.
Your ideas on modern day sexual behaviour are nil. You have no understanding of the subject matter. You’re trying to ram a square into a circle. It won’t fit. Wrong size.
Your old dusty theory is no longer condusive. The good little obedient women waiting to be told what to do as you imagine her to be are in very short supply in today’s world. You express severe signs of dislike for female emancipation. If there’s any growing up to be done it’s all over to you.
You are a fully fledged misogynist.
Jane – you miss the whole point. I wasn’t in any way talking about modern sexual behaviour. I was referring to the subliminal reasons behind some female make-up and choice of partners. Your comments are rude and frankly stupid because you have not understood what I was saying and have gone off on a silly and extremely arrogant tangent.
This is always what happens with people like you. They hate the fact that they get told that they don’t know nearly enough and their little ideas don’t even break the surface. They never realised the topic was so complicated. Nobody ever told them different, so how could they know? So they take the insulted and huffy approach and cast their rejections back at their educator, in vain attempt at gaining some kind of face. They hurl insults at women such as “Dork”. How inappropriate. That’s like calling a woman a “Wanker”.
When will you understand that this primal psychology that you are stuck in first gear with isn’t all encompassing? Some sections of society are somewhat more culturally and psychologically more advanced than others. It’s not the level primal playing field you believe it to be. It’s on an Us and Them basis. You’re either party to it or your not. There’s no sitting on the fence. You either live a conformist lifestyle or you don’t. You very do and always have, I don’t and never have. So how comes you think you know how people like me think? You can’t, you don’t, and you won’t.
I work in a business that spends 100% of its time promoting the psychology of sexuality and the likes of you, nothing more than a mere amateur thinker. thinks he can tell me anything about this? Go back to school, school boy. You’re in the big room with the big girls. We don’t wear pig-tails and spots. We choose our men for reasons I’d very much doubt you’d qualify for, given the photographs of you and my guess on your approximate height and distance length between elbow and wrist. A short arm gets a short dick.
Tell me what the science, psychology and human behaviour equates to when a man can no longer do it for a woman? Is there a plan B? What’s the primal psychology coming in to play for a man that can’t perform anymore? Does the woman simply apply some makeup and hey presto?
You want to discuss primal psychology in relation to female sexuality and make up Please do, because I’ve as yet to read one tiny detail that any woman would not already know. What you as a man are attempting to do is exactly as you as a man would be as capable as describing the female orgasm. You’ve no chance. Dream on Shorty, nd stop behaving like such an imbecilic dork.
For heavens sake – grow up!
Being intellectually challenged must be a handicap. Never mind. You are none the less amusing.
Charming! Stupid and rude. If you can’t understand the topic don’t bother commenting. If you just want to be abusive do it somewhere else.
Opher says:
Jane – you miss the whole point. I wasn’t in any way talking about modern sexual behaviour. I was referring to the subliminal reasons behind some female make-up and choice of partners. Your comments are rude and frankly stupid because you have not understood what I was saying and have gone off on a silly and extremely arrogant tangent.
So it’s moved from modern sexual behaviour to what exactly kind of sexual behaviour? Elizabethan? Ancient Greek? What?
So it’s moved to the subliminal reasons behind SOME female make-up and choice of partners.
She, Jane, didn’t miss any point. What happened is you got squashed for talking totally antiquated bullshit and then you go and move the goalposts with claims “Oh, I wasn’t talking about MODERN sexual behaviour. Oh, I was only referring to SOME female make-up and choice of partners.
OK, hands ups those wants to talk NON-MODERN sexual behaviour.
Whatcha running here Buster, Neanderthal School or what?
Well, lets see, you covered the stuff about make-up for eyes, face, lips – what other make-ups are there?
Nope, can’t think of any cos there aren’t. So what’s about the SOME make-up?
Man, you’d lose yourself in an elevator.
As for the choice of partner stuff. Really? Man, you jivin men, some of you put yourself with such all encompassing esteem, don’t yas? I couldn’t give two for what any man THINKS my make-up means cos it AIN’T for him, it’s for ME! I’m going to look better than that pork-ugly bitch sitting next to me with the bad teeth, the crook nose and the big ears. You better be dreaming if you thinks MY make-ups for any of your benefit. Same goes for EVERY girl I know my age group. I’m 23. OK, honey, you understands now some more?
The ONLY choice of partner that works for me is the schmuk with the most dollars in his wallet. Don’t gimme any of the genetic science shit – that ain’t gonna buy me dinner. And don’t you ever think I’m thinking anything about children when I’m deciding if i’m going to date a man. Nope. As I said, it’s his wallet, nothing much else. OK, he’s gonna have to be taller than 5 – 8, otherwise he’ll look stupid standing next to me. Besides, as somebodys already said, a short guy means a short dick and that’s not much interest. So’s that’s your partner picking bit done. We look for guys with good sized dicks on them, so the taller the better. You can’t ever have good sex if he’s too short down there. Yup, it’s a cruel fact but nothing but the truth.
Its the science of female maturity. Once she knows – and she knows nothing when she’s young about that, but when you get a bit more experienced with men, then you know better what to look for. You can tell what they’ve got to offer by their build. Golden rule is long arms, long legs. That’s key to a good sized penis.
I doubt men like you or the Morris fossil would even ever begin to understand the subliminal message behind what make-up I wear and when.
You know the color of eye shadow a woman wears when she’s on period?
You know what she does to send out a message of don’t bother me?
You know the color of eye shadow she wears when she’s on the hottest 3 days of the months?
You know what colour her lips gonna be for period week?
You know what perfumes she wears period week?
Or why any others for any other week?
See I just know that you guys know nothing towards what goes down today.
Who wants to know what Cretin people did forty thousand years back.
I just checked and read that whole introduction piece again. Woah, whats the deal with that Morris. Was he Neanderthal or something? His ideas like a cave dweller.
He for sure doesn’t speak for me – and I knows what I do, why I do, when I do and for who I do and the rest.
How many different names are you going to come up with? Always the same silliness. That never changes.
Different, I don’t know as I just use two, the first my mother gave me, the second from my father. The one in the middle is Shelly. Lucita Shelly Davort, Philadelphia. You want something else?
My word Opher – or should we be calling you Mr. Midnight Man?
First I read your post of spending the last few days having an enjoyable time with grandchildren, and the first post that you make is this! I’m slightly shocked by that. Are we supposed to read something into that? Whatever, it’s slightly bewildering is it not?
My word Opher – or should we be calling you Mr. Midnight Man?
First I read your post of spending the last few days having an enjoyable time with grandchildren, and the first post that you make is this! I’m slightly shocked by that. Are we supposed to read something into that? Whatever, it’s slightly bewildering is it not?
Opps, I was trying to cut ‘n paste for a quote and missed.
What I wanted to say was – I did have a pretty good laugh at your attempts to duel with Jane Scrivens – you should be a bit more careful as her irons are a lot hotter than yours and you haven’t a cat’s chance in ever winning that debate. Needless to say, I fully agree with everything she said.
I did laugh at Irene Bannister. Her “Mr. Midnight Man” was a scream. You couldn’t be less even if you tried, so no dangers there. But yes, it did seem a bit of a strange and questionable more to describe such a fine wholesome family time and then to post up something of this nature.
Do you wish to explain?
Nothing to explain – I didn’t realise you were so hung-up by any mention of sex.
Duelling – what a strange assessment.
I was trying to be kind. You’re right, there was no dual. She murdered you in cold blood.
Well Isobel I don’t know why you should find it shocking? Neither playing with grandchildren or commenting on the biological signals behind female make-up seems very shocking to me. As a zoologist and psychologist who was interested in human behaviour I find it nothing but fascinating. Why should you be shocked?
Because you’re discussing something that’s more than simply make-up. You’re creepy.
If you can’t see that staring you in the face, then you really have a problem. Next thing you’ll be promoting paedophilia.
I really don’t see why you have a problem with discussing make-up and sex as human behaviour and in any way equate that with paedophilia. I find that weird. There’s nothing creepy about it.
Yes, Opher, she’s right. It is creepy. At least you’ve certainly managed to creep me out.
Oh well – some people find talking about sex as creepy. I don’t. Sorry if that creeps you out. Not the intent.
You’re intentionally evading the point. I’ll remind you that the point was that you’d no sooner published a piece about the lovely time you’d spent with grandchildren over the last few days, then the very next thing you do was to publish this piece on of all subjects “Female Make-up and sexuality”. Quite how you managed to arrive at that subject with such immediacy only you will know. I don’t wish to know. A psychiatrist would have a field day with you on that. And if you’re anything of the Psychologist that you claim to be you should immediately see it for it is.
Is there anything you might wish to tell us regarding your recent activities with your grandchildren. That’s the impression that you seem to have given people here. The more I ponder the creepier it seems. I suggest you think a little more carefully in future.
Isobel – I reckon there’s fifteen posts between that and this. If it’s too much for you to handle then you know what you can do. You have a pretty nasty mind – that’s all. LOL.
My friend Jane Scrivens gave me a link to read this. LOL, what have we here but a wanna be alpha-male trying to educate us women on why we want sex.
Who wrote this dry “thesis”, the forty-year old virgin or what? It’s as dry as my floorboards with not an once of real sexuality attached to it. Do we need to supply our own KY? It’s like an introduction to sex for retiring Nuns.
What religion is this “standard heterosexual” girl, according to Desmond Morris. I’d be interested to understand that as it makes a big difference to all sorts of related factors, not just behavioural but also psychological.
I’ve another question. Why do men’s eye pupils dilate when they reach arousal?
Or did you think that was only a female reaction? Nope. Which probably goes some to explain that you’ve never looked at yourself in the mirror with a hard-on – or specifically looked closely at your own eyes with a hard-on.
The Morris man’s understanding is better relative to the Neanderthal or those from what we term as third world. It’s of really very little significance today.
One of the main reasons is the writer has not given any consideration at all to the behaviour pattern with women towards other women. Many younger women will present themselves with incredibly sophisticated and skillful makeup for the sole purpose of doing one over a rival. The last intention that they have is to be attracting any males. This manner of behaviour is highly profound within the 18 to 23 years old group where jealousy, envy, rivalry, and competition is at its highest level. Most women (although not all) are not particularly interested in finding “The One” at that age. It’s been several decades since this was the average age of match-making. Their main agenda is on a “I’m so much more beautiful than you are” zone. It’s very selfish and self-centered. I don’t think dear old Desmond ever so much as thought about that. Not nearly are all of today’s women doing things with their appearance that have anything to do with attracting a mate. The chimp-factor has dwindled – a lot.
Having read your own comment on this, the one about Kim Kardashian, I’m surprised that you completely missed the point of her whole existence. She’s a competitive type with the sole agenda to be always the centre of attention. She doesn’t want any other in her circle to be getting any attention at all. It’s about her, not her partner, nor her off-spring, but her and only her.
Some men have no hope of ever having any immediate contact with such women with these personality traits and most have extreme difficulty in dealing with them on any level. They are either scared witless or driven to massive insecurities and malfunction.
The odds are stacked high against them and they will be used and abused.
Many, many women have emancipated themselves completely from these age-old thoughts and ideas. They have nothing to do with that. That’s why so many are utilising sperm donors, people they’ve never met. We’re in new territory and we play with a new set of rules. You men better catch up.
Ho ho. If only you had a brain to understand. Too beyond you. Never mind. Go and be nasty elsewhere.
Don’t you think it’s yourself with the problem here? Why do we work for very successful women’s magazines for many years? Do you think that the majority of women don’t agree with our subject matter? That they don’t agree with our discussion topics of opinion on female sexuality issues – which are never ending over the years And you, some amateur nonentity with a chip on his misfiring sexual shoulder wants to hold court on our knowledge and correct us with his completely irrelevant hocus pocus on our opinion and experience and feelings and likes and dislikes. Are you that pig-headed and misogynistic that you won’t allow us to express ourselves and resort to statements that we’re stupid, unintelligent, brainless, and it’s all beyond our intellectual capacity? How dare you!
You really are beyond the pale here and behaving nothing more than like a misogynistic creep. At least not remotely alpha-male, and are disingenuous and all-round blatantly disgusting. I really pity your poor wife having to live with that dysfunction.
Far from it. You seem incapable of looking at what I said and seeing the underlying biology and behaviour. Also incapable of holding a debate, presenting facts or opinions without using abuse and personal attacks. There is no point trying to deal intelligently with people who are just rude.
I talked about the biological significance of eye-liner, mascara, rouge and lipstick and I get a lot of stupidity about casual sex, African women’s vaginas and put-downs along with nasty insinuations of paedophilia. Well you know where you can stuff it don’t you?
Totally wrong. Obviously you do not understand the premise. Never mind. No you haven’t emancipated yourself from your biological imperatives. Our basic psychology and behaviour remains unchanged. You confuse conscious chosen behaviour with the subliminal subconscious behaviour to which I was referring.
This is a lot like time travel. One’s point of view is determined upon what point in time they were dropped off. I think there’s obviously a multiple number of millennia between where old Mr Morris dropped off and set up camp than that of our female commentators on this page. And that’s fair enough. We humans have evolved somewhat. Perhaps not so much physically, but certainly cognitively. There’s really no need to get into anything that’s particularly scientific on this as I think it’s fairly straight forward for us all to be able to acknowledge that we humans evolve through time. Ancient Britons used to paint one of their selected own from head to toe in animal blood, tie them to a stake and wait for the wolves to show up and try and kill them for dinner. We don’t think that way any more. So I think old Mr Morris needs to take himself back to the thinking board and sort himself out.
I see that Opher’s all too prone to bandy about his “qualifications”, but I’d say with immediacy that teaching school level biology is a far cry from that of a fully-fledged Scientist. I should play my own qualification cards that would smack most others into touch but for what purpose? It’s how we communicate that counts. It’s how we explain ourselves that counts.
I readily side with the modernist-feminist take here. I’m really very suspect of Opher’s/Morris’s conclusions. We’re not living in caves anymore. Women have not for a long time been simply specimens of visible example – like children, who should be seen but not heard. Our behavioural patterns are as complex as our life-style choices. These complexities didn’t exist for our ancestors. We have multiple reasons for our behaviour today and there really is no compare to ages of time ago.
When I read (Barbara’s piece) about jealousy and envy, I immediately identified with that with my own two daughters, who’d go out of their ways to completely out-makeup, out-hair style and out-dress other girls they disliked. I should really say “hated”. That competition had nothing of the sort to do with boys or hoping to attract any. It was simply a battle cry or scream in the face of adversity (these other girls they hated) that “hey, so you thought you looked something, huh? well, get a load of this” and that’s how they played that game – and for years! I never saw any signs of any male friends for years. I fear that that entire concept – and a very important factor of female life it is – was completely overlooked by both old Mr Morris and our resident Opher. No big deal as they aren’t women, but at least listen to women, please!
So, Opher, with all due respect, may I suggest that you extract yourself from that dusty old Morris tomb and step into the modern world. It would do you the world of good (I think) to listen to these highly intelligent women on a subject that is anything but beyond their understanding – as much as it obviously pleases you to tell them it is. That was a very low trick to play. You ran out of Joker cards long ago on this debate and had no more to play with. You were given good discourse, yet restricted that debate to that small area of your own (and Morris’s lest we forget him and I could/would) understanding. But as a mere man you will only understand a woman to the best of your ability. You will only understand your behavioural activity to the best of your understanding. Your limitations are evident. Your behaviour as claimed by an other was indeed in this instance what I would also call as misogynistic.
This can’t be the first time you’ve been debated into a brick wall is it? There’s really no need to get so nasty. Can’t you tell the difference to getting your leg pulled on a piss take to being called an out and out bastard? You reacted entirely badly. Very badly. You’re definitely in the wrong game here buster. Maybe’s better you keep your head down in poems. You can’t offend people so badly with poems.
I think it’s time you looked at things from the position of biology and behaviour, then you’d understand a little more.
OK, so you want to excuse yourself under the double-whammy guise of “biological imperatives”, and “Our basic psychology and behaviour remains unchanged. You confuse conscious chosen behaviour with the subliminal subconscious behaviour to which I was referring.”
Let’s discuss that. I have some spare minutes to outline a few basic principles.
I think without it being in statute of stone it’s quite clear and concise that in fact there have been changes. Our psychological responses have been greatly enhanced by the multitudes of challenges cognitively experienced through the the ages and through all manner of constant developments. In tandem our behaviour has also evolved. It is debatable whether it can be termed as more sophisticated, but at least, it is more of something, so to speak. Our behaviour is determined by our psychology and our psychology is determined by our cognitive understanding in relation to our direct environment. Hence, why we may be depressed sitting in a jail cell or very happy sitting in a nice garden.
Quite what make up has to do with anything subliminal I cannot imagine. The application of makeup as worn and presented is an overtly visually stimulating act, therefore, by decree of entity without subliminal message. Unless of course one invents one secretly for themselves.
So ladies wearing makeup. Or as you prefer to term as “the biological significance of eye-liner, mascara, rouge and lipstick.”
What’s biological about it? If a person had never before seen another person wearing make up is his immediate or any response for that matter going to be on a biological basis? By nature they’d need to be trained towards such a biological reaction. Nor by any means is every individual going to express the same reaction. I would consider it perfectly plausible that even back in our cave dwelling days we may prefer partnership with one partner through choice over another. We would have “fancied” her. And with that goes all the rest of it – smell, touch and taste. I would imagine we might very well have been somewhat governed perhaps by the smell (or lack of putrid stink) emanating from her vagina. I would also concur with a previous comment that you made little of – your mistake – that one may very well have been attracted by the muscular activity of the vagina over one that could not perform with such vigour.
It’s also very plausible that the expression of adornment of makeup on a woman in cave times was a sign of “don’t come near me, I’m hooked up already.” We do understand that men and women friends traded gifts so other aspects of expression follow suit. We also understand that makeup gave one a place position in the hierarchy of their micro-society, not that different to what’s found in third world territories. Etc, infinitum.
You made further excuse towards myself with “I think it’s time you looked at things from the position of biology and behaviour, then you’d understand a little more.”
Indeed. I understand as much. And a little more.
The complexities of reasoning as relevant today where indicted above with expressive description for your perusal. If chose to ignore their complexities, so be it.
These behaviour patterns we know of today are governed by the psychological challenges at play within our current universe. We don’t run around scared of the big bad witch at night, because we know better these days. Our behavioural psychology has developed. Our psychological imperatives are no longer as they were as these imperatives are determined by the complexities of environment and knowledge and understanding.
Basically Opher, men no longer look at women who are wearing makeup and think “oh goody, I’ll be getting my leg over”. Although I can’t speak for old Morris or yourself whom evidently has a reaction as you explained your wife thinks you do.
We’ve evolved to the extent of understanding when it is appropriate to consider such sexual suggestion. We now know when best to react to it. We know it’s not the office on a Monday morning. We do know it could be the club on a Saturday night.
What confused this entire spiel were your own additions made such as this comment: “To supplement the effects of make-up the female uses bras and cleavage to accentuate her breasts, clothing to accentuate her child-bearing hips, high heels and short dresses to accentuate her legs and perfume to create a heady musk.”
You know why bras were invented. They told you.
The child bearing hips went off limits. That’s a non-topic.
Skirts and legs are a matter of choice. A short skirt on fat legs does nothing for any sexual attraction.
Let’s immediately let it be known that the wearing of perfume was to indicate a persons position in the hierarchy and has been a social device thousands of years.
It was originally a sexual device.
My wife just spied over my shoulder just there and well I won’t repeat what she said.
Something like “we’re not ……. animals!” Where does he think we live, the ……. zoo?”
LOL. I think the women won this one around, better luck next time.
Well to start with we are animals – nothing more and nothing less. We respond like animals. Your wife is simply wrong.
All make-up and clothing is sending signals.
As most of that is subliminal we do not even know we are doing it or why.
The fascinating theories I was playing with was the behavioural observations that the make-up (eye, cheeks and lips) mimicked sexual arousal. Now you can refute that, agree with that, discuss that or speculate on that.
It opens up a whole interesting series of speculations and discussions.
Instead of zooming off into all this irrelevance of casual sex, African vaginas, scent and other uses of make-up with all the abusive nonsense of cave-men, Neanderthals, fuddy-duddy’s, monogamy, and not understanding what modern women’s sexual urges are all about and then the ridiculous ageist crap and creepy paedophilia put-downs, it would be much better to have an interesting intelligent discussion. But seemingly my trolls do not want that.
Human behaviour is much more primitive than most people realise. Desmond Morris was a very well-known and renowned human behaviourist who opened up a number of fascinating areas.
I think you’re being extremely pedantic in your defense of old Morris here. He was a bright guy, no doubts, but foremost he was a bird guy of the winged variety and a surrealist painter and a film maker of zoological studies amongst other things.
His work on this subject was only a theory. His surrealist streak got the better of him.
I doubt he was much of a ladies man. I believe his theory was more or less an educational development hand book for personal reference.
Why don’t you read back on the comments. You just accused me of statements made by anothers. You must have lost interest or the will to live as it looks to me like its about five to one here. You being the one.
OK, so you think the sun shines out of Morris. He was just one of thousands of such people. You most evidently possess a much easier manipulated subliminal subconscious that another person. This goes some way to explain your underdevelopment with relationships with the opposite sex as you dropped out of the competitive world as you described at the tender age eighteen years old at which point you would have hardly known anything about the fairer sex. Therefore it is no surprise why you were so readily willing to engage yourself towards this theory of Morris. Your education had to start somewhere.
There are also the millions of forty-year old virgins around and no shortage of self-help guide books to help them develop repressed social skills and to raise their awareness of their sexual subconscious. These books all contain this same introductory study to try and explain to the hapless virgin what it is that these ladies that we don’t know anything about are trying to tell us with all the fancy colours on their faces. To those of us that have been around a bit it’s a bit like tuning into Blue Peter for our sexual education.
We know – or should know were one to discuss this subject – that lipstick is to replicate the state of arousal of the vagina. Yet surprisingly you did not appear to know this.
It is an absurdity that you cannot accept any evolutionary development and believe this subliminal subconscious sits stationary in 40,000 BC. It’s absurd that you cannot foresee that many women abuse make-up application to mask pock-marked skin. This is not an act of sexuality. It is absurd to believe that all make-up and clothing is sending signals. You meant to say SOME application styles of make-up and SOME forms of clothing.
My wife has never worn make-up and very much dislikes it. She does occasionally wear a facial foundation which has nothing to do with any desires of a sexual nature but rather that of protection from sunlight. Some women are very lucky having perfect skin tone and toned skin in great condition and she is one. Others are not and take the drastic step in plastering themselves with it. It does NOT send out any subliminal subconscious signals. An ugly woman will always be an ugly woman and no matter how she make-ups herself or douses herself in perfumes, we normal men will NOT be attracted. Your Morris theory sits alone like the fat girl does at the back of the hall at the village disco. All the make-up and perfume in the world will never entice the boys to dance with her. She’ll have to wait until the drunken older boys roll in from the pub.
There’s a theory that we landed on the moon. But I think it’s fair to say that the subliminal subconscious body language expressionism displayed by both Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin upon investigative interview told us an entirely different story.
Truther – the Desmond Morris theory is a theory – an observation – nothing more. It is none-the-less a fascinating idea with a sound basis that is worthy of consideration and discussion.
Obviously there is a far wider set of considerations regarding female sexuality, attraction and the use of make-up, clothing and other aids to enhance – and they all have different psychological and behavioural basis. That goes without saying.
When we start getting into unpleasant, and totally absurd, aspersions and personal remarks then it ceases to be an intelligent discussion and merely becomes an ad hominem attack. I’ll treat that with the disdain it deserves.
There, that’s a bit better now isn’t it as you’ve resigned yourself to the fact that you know these other people here just might have made some very valid points and that they are worthy of consideration rather than the immediacy of put down that you extended towards them, and calling women dorks, whilst meanwhile claiming to be discussing psychology. There’s a whole book on your behaviour on just this page.
I thought the other contributions to your commentary were most worthy of some proper attention from you. To call them ignorant was most ignorant of you.
Shame on you.
I have detected one most obvious and considerably negative characteristic from you in the process of just this most basic of exchanges. That is you cannot tolerate or have great difficulty which acceptance of another whom displays a knowledge basis that threatens the superiority of your own. You need to play Alpha-Male ALL the time.
A lot of women have become very tired indeed with this type of behaviour as has been successfully expressed upon this very page.
With a lot of self-help, will power and deliberation maybe one day you might be able to turn around and say to somebody “you know what, you’ve got a point there”.
Here’s to it.
Oh my goodness – what a can of worms this post opened up.
All a bit of unpleasant silliness I’m afraid. Some people feed on negativity and nastiness.
You’re not wrong. I could not believe what I was reading…
They are trying to upset with their nastiness and twisting what was said. Never mind.
interesting.
Certainly food for thought isn’t it Soo. We’re all animals aren’t we?
Partially agreed with you but definitely we have a sense of humor which others do not have.
Yes we do. Though I think my dog had the beginnings of a sense of humour and chimps definitely do.
Great post!
Thank you Meghan.