h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

When did the human male become the dowdy partner?

In the majority of the animal species the male is the colourful one, doing all the displaying and wasting energy in producing attractive appearance and posturing, while the female is dowdy, conserving energy to protect and raise the offspring.

This applies across bird, insect, mammal and gastropdoda.

There are species that don't, such as chimpanzee, etc, but they are just similar to each other.

The human race has, largely, reversed the trend, with the female wearing make-up, bright clothing, dressing for an evening out, whereas the male, who used to be flamboyant and colourful, is now reduced to a tramp, wearing shoddy clothing, exposing underclothing, distressed outer garments and no discernible attempt at attracting the female.

Or is he? Does the reverse work? Does the tramp/grunge look attract the alpha female, or has the sexual dimorphism changed in the human race?

I just find it strange, and still follow nature's diktat, but am I now an anachronism? A mere vestige of what once was?

MMF

There were few examples of outstanding feminine fashion
in the ancient whirled. The classics, like Salome, Delilah,
and Cleopatra have been glamorized in our imaginations by
the modern values of Hollywood. In reality they were most
likely simply beautiful in a natural, non-cosmetic way and
earned their reputations through their actions based on their
relationships with kings and Warriors who found them attractive.

Kings and warriors on the other hand were very conscious of
accessorizing their appearance with paint, bones, claws, golden
trinkets, helmets and crowns. The average woman likely only
knew how to keep clean and keep house. Harem girls hardly
wore any clothes at all.


~jwf~

"exposing underclothing"

Just because you don't appreciate the male exposing underclothing, doesn't mean I don't.

Given that most males shave their faces thoroughly each day, removing and/or sculpting their facial hair in sometimes intricate patterns, I see a flaw in your reasoning. I can't think of any animal that mutilates itself for appearances sake.

Also, google "manzilian"

Up to the French Revolution it was normal for men to dress as gaudily as women. Then it became unpopular to be mistaken for an aristocrat and executed. A global trend followed. I guess that women weren't considered as important so they got away with continuing the bright colours.

"Also, google "manzilian""

Personally, I suggest that you don't.



PP.

It also assumes that women predominately dress for men, which could be seen as a tad insulting. I would suggest that it is more complex than that, status, self expression, making a number of impressions for example in the work place not solely based on attracting a mate

A lot of men were very flamboyant in the 70s & 80s. Then punk & grunge came into vogue. But there are plenty of females who have that scruffy exposed underwear look too.
Perhaps it's all the cheap clothing that doesn't last well that creates this look.

I think there are still men & women who like to dress up (or down) according to the occasion. Perhaps the men aren't quite as gaudy as the women - high quality cloth & expensive labels instead!

The industrial revolution took some of the starch out of men's sartorial habits, as it were. Maybe the peacock hues of colorful clothing began to need more frequent cleaning in the filthier air from the extra stuff that had to be burned to make the factories run. Maybe the city landscapes were reduced to charcoal gray [again, because of air pollution], so clothing began to be devised which would blend in with cityscapes. Black and gray and navy don't become obviously dirty as fast as lighter colors like white and yellow. Even tan/khaki can stand up to pollution. With so many smokestacks around, men could wear top hats, which sort of looked like them.

Alpha males might wear the same somber colors as lesser males, but there were and still are] ways to stand out in terms of obvious quality and accessories like cufflinks, fancy ties, fancy tie pins,. and the most expensive watches. So, ties can still be gaudy and colorful, but they are nowhere as expensive as coats and trousers, and can be thrown away when they're worn out or stained without a lot of angst. The key part is that they don't have to match other garments -- i.e., a suit may have three or four parts that have to match. Ruin the coat or pants, and you may have to ditch the whole thing!

People far down the ladder wouldn't wear fine clothing for their work anyway. Blue jeans have been around more than 160 years, they can stand up to repeated washing, and aren't going to make or break any deals because of how they look.

I think the reason that folk don't dress up so much as in the past is that we're all richer. 100 years ago men would all wear a suit to show that they could *afford* a suit, and thereby confer the status of one who was part of society. Then we all got rich enough to afford a suit, if we wanted to (and we didn't). So, it wasn't a mark of anything any more. I think there's a big parallel with weight: 5oo years all da chicks were chubby, cos that showed they'd access to food. Now rich women are thin, cos that's not an issue any more.

I'd bet the youngsters with the ass hanging out their trousers have pretty damn expensive pants on. I'll bet the folk they're trying to impress know the brand adorning their backside. And the trainers you don't even notice might cost more than the suit I wear to work.

Thinking about it, the rich skinny women aren't really that different from da kids pretending not to give a damn.

"The human race has, largely, reversed the trend, with the female wearing make-up, bright clothing, dressing for an evening out,"

women have been using jewlry and other adornments at least since the Neolithic times.

" whereas the male, who used to be flamboyant and colourful, is now reduced to a tramp, wearing shoddy clothing, exposing underclothing, distressed outer garments and no discernible attempt at attracting the female."

Beside that kind of men you say,there are also many others who dress according to many different styles.
Many worry about attracting the female and wear perfum, put cream, dye hair, go to gym... and others just do it to feel happy with their appearance, just for the sake of it.


I see as some women feel attracted to the tramp kind, but that´s just because the media glamourize that kind of garments. In the same way, some men follow the mainstream kind of woman that is promoted by media as the ideal beauty: slim, big boobs, neat hairstyle, nails...


Nowadays, there´s a trend, or should say a plague? of men wearing big black squared glasses, beard, fitted trousers, too tight, I´d say, and wearing the same hairstyle. Hipsters ?? at least that the version of them in Spain.
I find it a bit boring.
Despite being so many, a pest, believe me, Young men keep on dressing like that, and the reason, again, is because they are pervasive in the media, mainly in advertising...

"The Creation of man," a song in the musical "Scarlet Pimpernel," discusses this topic. Of course, the story is set in the late 18th century, when male foppishness was at its height.
'
"Of the goosie and the gander, sir
Which gender is the grander, sir
To render total candor, sir, the spendour is the male's!
Be an example to your sex
Give your boot a dapper strap
And it's smarter if your garter has some snap!"

source: http://www.lyricsondemand.com/soundtracks/s/scarletpimpernellyrics/thecreationofmanlyrics.html