The Female Erotic Object: Sexual Dimorphism and Darwinian Sexual Selection

     O mother Ida, many-fountain'd Ida. 

     Dear mother Ida, harken ere I die. 

     Idalian Aphrodite, beautiful, 

     Fresh as the foam, new-bathed in Paphian wells, 

     With rosy slender fingers backward drew 

     From her warm brows and bosom her deep hair 

     Ambrosial, golden round her lucid throat 

     And shoulder: from the violets her light foot 

     Shone rosy-white, and o'er her rounded form 

     Between the shadows of the vine-bunches 

     Floated the glowing sunlights, as she moved.

          —Tennyson, from “OEnone”

     I had originally intended the introductory quote for this to be, approximately, “The three things in life that give a man his greatest pleasure are, unfortunately, all parts of a woman’s body.” The trouble is that when I saw it many years ago it was attributed, I’m pretty sure, to Errol Flynn, but now I can’t find it anywhere to verify it, attributed to Flynn or to anyone else. Maybe the quote is too politically incorrect to find its way onto a Google search results page, considering the PC bias of Google, Inc. and its left-leaning search engine. Maybe it’s pure apocrypha. It kind of sucks actually.

     Also, I had originally intended to write this for my other, previous blog; but the subject, along with pictures of naked women, especially that which is to be found in the next post (this post being some introductory biology), was a little too spicy for a blog devoted to Buddhist philosophy. This here blog, as you may have already noticed, is devoted to flaunting politically incorrect truths, and to pointing out the suicidal lunacy of the new left, and just about anything goes, so here goes.

     The human being, Homo sapiens, is a kind of animal, a hominoid primate mammal. And like many other animals, our species displays what is called sexual dimorphism: that is, males are obviously different from females. This is not the case with all animals; for example, crows look so alike that I assume it is only through behavioral differences that the crows themselves can distinguish between males and females of their own species. (One way of telling them apart is to toss a piece of bread in front of a crow: if he eats it, it’s a male, but if she eats it, it’s a female.) Sexual dimorphism occurs primarily in species that are not monogamous and in which members of at least one gender compete for mates—either by fighting amongst themselves for dominance, or by managing somehow to be more attractive. This competition results in what is called Darwinian sexual selection.

     A classic, obvious example of sexual dimorphism is the peafowl, Pavo cristatus; the long tail and bright coloration of the peacock are actually detrimental in terms of survival—in the wild, male peafowl are more easily seen by predators and can’t fly as well due to the lousy aerodynamics of the tail. But, peahens are attracted to brightly colored males who display a huge fan of elaborate, ornate tail feathers, plus a few other accessories, so that’s how peacocks have evolved. For peacocks, evolutionarily, it is of more advantage to live a short life scoring heavy with the hens, terminated by a violent death, than to live to a ripe old age without reproducing. 

     Another well-known example of sexual selection and dimorphism is deer and elk, the males of which have antlers. In part they are used for fighting during the mating season, but also they are sexual ornaments: a female will be more attracted to a male with a large, branching rack of antlers because it indicates his health and vitality, and thus also indicates the likelihood that he will contribute superior genes to her fawns. She would rather be one of several in the harem of an alpha than the one and only true love of an inferior beta, because the alpha will contribute better genes to her offspring, thereby increasing the odds that they will grow up to be strong, successful alphas themselves.

     Our nearest living relatives, the anthropoid apes, demonstrate sexual dimorphism also, more so than is displayed by us humans. Rather than trying to look good for the females, however, ape sexual dimorphism derives mainly from fighting amongst males for access to females, and thus dimorphism is largely a matter of size and musculature, plus maybe fangs. The average male gorilla, for example, is almost twice as massive as a female; in us humans, on the other hand, males are on average around 15% larger, although men twice as massive as their mates are not rare. (In peafowl and other galliform birds like chickens and quails, males fight for females also, resulting in larger, more aggressive males than females. It is apparently a law that in species in which males fight for females, the males are larger.) On the other hand, most gibbons show relatively little dimorphism. This is because gibbons, unlike the “great apes” who fight for access to groups of females, are monogamous and mate for life. We humans are somewhere in between; we are more or less monogamous in most societies, although men especially are willing to indulge in a little polygamy if they can manage it. There is less sexual dimorphism in us than in early humans, which indicates that we have become more monogamous over time; but we haven’t fully made the transition from the “tournament” mating style of our ancestors to pure, lovebird-like monogamy.

     (At this point I suppose I should point out that polygamy makes more sense for a male than for a female, speaking biologically. A man with ten female consorts can produce, potentially at least, many times more offspring than a man with only one mate. A woman with ten male consorts could hardly produce ten times as many children, unless maybe the first nine guys were impotent. A male can have several females pregnant at the same time. And reproducing one’s DNA sequences in the form of children is the name of the game, the golden purpose of life from a biological point of view. This also gives a little taste of how men and women have evolved to differ psychologically as well as physically: A woman wants one man who will be faithful to her, whereas a man is more likely to prefer a less restrictive order of things. He does, however, want to be sure that the children he raises are his own, endowed with his own genes, hence such instincts as sexual jealousy. Generally speaking of course.)

     Some general manifestations of human sexual dimorphism not so easily seen, and which are not necessarily directly linked with sexual selection, are: Men have a basal metabolic rate about 10% higher than that of women, and metabolize food into muscle and short-term energy reserves at a higher rate, whereas women convert more food energy into fat; men have higher red blood cell counts, with more hemoglobin, but lower white blood cell counts, and thus a weaker immune system and greater susceptibility to contagious diseases; men have higher levels of blood-clotting factors in their blood also, and higher tolerance to the pain of peripheral flesh wounds (which makes sense considering that men are traditionally more likely to be wounded); men have about 30% greater lung capacity in proportion to body mass; they have likewise, maybe ironically, a larger heart, which, along with the metabolic rate, red blood cells, hemoglobin, and lung capacity, allows for more strenuous physical exertion; and they also have a slightly larger brain. With regard to this last, it is interesting that Neanderthal males had a cranial capacity of around 1600cc, which is considerably larger than we modern humans have, whereas Neanderthal females had a cranial capacity of only 1300cc; so maybe it’s a good thing we’re only around 3% Neanderthal—a good thing for feminists anyway.

     Sexual dimorphism, even when not a direct result of Darwinian sexual selection, is conditioned by behavioral differences between the sexes; for example by different roles in caring for the young and division of labor in acquiring food. And of course (trigger warning: political incorrectness looming), behavioral differences are profoundly conditioned by psychological differences, largely influenced by hormones. The very fact that these differences have persisted for hundreds of thousands of years and are universal throughout human cultures indicates that they are not merely social constructs put in place by patriarchal men, but are built into us at a genetic level. Some of these genes have already been identified. Sexual dimorphism and psychological differences are mutually conditioning, and I consider it fair to say that the two biological genders have as much inherent psychological divergence as physical divergence. If there were no psychological differences between genders there would be no physical differences, other than necessary differences in sexual organs. Again: males and females are naturally, inherently just as different psychologically as physically. Call it Paññobhāsa’s Law. Mind and body condition each other, even create each other.

     Therefore, ergo, the culturally constructed arbitrariness of gender and gender roles is a politically correct myth at best, and at worst deluded hogwash conducive to the decline of human civilization. From a biological, empirical point of view, a man who identifies as a woman is just that: a man who identifies as a woman. But the new PC leftist ideology cares little or nothing for empirical evidence, or even obvious facts. The feminine mind prefers feelings to facts.

     Before moving away from psychological differences, which really aren’t my emphasis in all this anyway, and moving on to the more interesting issue of the effects of sexual selection on the female body, I will point out that one of the universal qualities of sexual attraction in humans is this: women are more attracted to power and social status in a man, and men are more attracted to youth and beauty in a woman. (There is, however, an alternative strategy in some women of deliberately choosing a more feminine beta male because he’s more likely to remain faithful; and some men actually prefer fat and/or ugly women, especially if their mother looked that way. But the general tendency remains the same.) Thus, unlike peafowl and many other sexually dimorphic species, in humans it is females who are more evolved to look beautiful—or, to be more precise, sexually attractive. In fact, the female body has evolved, via Darwinian sexual selection, to be literally a sex object. Which is what the next post will be about. Illustrated too. Prepare yourselves.