>>>>>statistically; women consider only 20% of men beautiful... the other 80% are ugly, but tolerable, coz they are good providers<<<<<

Lets play a little game of imagination:

lets say we make a Law that forces women to make babies ONLY with the men they find truly absolutely gorgeous and perfect; the 20% of men they deem good looking. The rest of the men will be granted recreational sex but prohibited from procreating. only the handsome of the most handsome will be allowed to pass their good looks to the next generation. and when the next generation of women mature we repeat the same process again. selecting only the most beautiful men for procreation. the next generation after that we do it all over again. Now, if we repeat this process for 100 years; what would the average man look like after that century of sexual selection? on a scale of 1 to 10? probably most men would be 6s and 7s. the majority of men wouldn't look as horrible as the majority men of today do!!
OK. lets say we repeat this process of selecting only the most beautiful of men for procreation for 1 000 years! That’s about 30 generations of women only making babies with the most beautiful men....repeating the process over and over again, always choosing the most beautiful among the most beautiful men. after those 1 000 years how will the average man look? now its safe to say women will be facing stiff competition!!! but it must be noted that as men's beauty increases the women's beauty will also be going up...but men have a huge advantage over women: testosterone, the male hormone; that grants them two privileges: they hold on to their beauty for longer and they actually get more beautiful as they age--->making men age like fine wine. Unlike the disloyal Estrogen, the female hormone; that curses women with two weaknesses: they cant hold on to their beauty for long with 25 the age the beauty begins to fade and, painfully, they get uglier as they age---->making women age like milk. so its reasonable to conclude that after 1000 years men would be beauty masterpieces, with women forced to share the "fairer sex" title equally with men.

OK. lets switch it up....lets suppose we repeat this process of only the most beautiful of the most beautiful of men procreating for 6 000 yrs!!!!!! OR, ......... since the World is 6 000 yrs old, lets say what if, from the Garden of Eden, from the very beginning of the human race; women were forced to make babies ONLY with gorgeous men... what if the Patriarchy and its formula of keeping women poor so they marry for survival never happened! what if women, from Year 0 to Year 2018; married men for their beauty like men marry women today.. HOW BEAUTIFUL WOULD MEN BE TODAY?? can you imagine it?

well, you need not imagine it. becoz right next door to our World there is another World whose females, from Year 0 to Year 2018; have been choosing males for their beauty. and it has worked wonders!!!

MALES ANIMALS ARE MORE BEAUTIFUL THAN FEMALE ANIMALS!!!

a simple day spent observing wildlife in a zoo, in a game park or on the Nature Channel on TV will make you realize something uncanny and marvelous....the males of animals are drop dead gorgeous, while the females are average!!! from the majestic Lion that outshines the lioness with his golden mane, to the peacock whose colourful tail mesmerizes the tail-less peahen; from the male deer whose huge, beautiful and highly elaborate antlers are a crown female deer don't have; to the hundreds of male bird species who are not only more colorful than their female peers but actually sing better and sweeter than the females - its a truth written in lines of fire : In Nature, The Males Own The Beauty. the Animal World next door to the Human World has things upside down.or maybe its us humans who have things upside down..

WHY MALE ANIMALS OWN THE BEAUTY.

To understand how animals live in a world where males are more attractive than females we have to first understand what beauty means to Animals as opposed to what beauty means to Humans.in humans beauty goes hand in hand with weakness; but in animals beauty goes hand in hand with strength. which appears to be God's original plan since Lucifer was not only the most beautiful angel but also the most powerful. What went wrong with humans is that the Fall of Man and the direct effect of the Patriarchy and Religion placed women firmly under men's power, effectively taking away from women the power to choose men for looks instead forcing them to choose men for bread to survive as the Patriarchy kept them poor. something unknown in the Animal Kingdom where the female is fiercely independent and is the provider rearing her offspring usually by herself; giving her the freedom to select mates for beauty. but why is beauty so important in nature?? In nature Beauty translates to Strength. Nature is about survival, and any animal that doesn't blend in among his surroundings or among the others "Stands Out" , placing himself in danger. meaning any animal that has the balls to look attractive and draw attention to himself by his looks is sending a very clear message to the predators, and especially to the females : I CAN PLAY WITH FIRE WITHOUT FEAR.I CAN BE SO COLOURFUL THAT PREDATORS CAN SPOT ME FROM A MILE AWAY, BUT GUESS WHAT? IM NOT AFRAID. COZ THEY WILL NEVER CATCH ME.IM THAT STRONG" its a claim that is always true and cant be faked.and a female animal, looking for a strong, fit sperm donor chooses this attractive and daring male, coz she wants babies that will survive. the female animal reasons: this colorful male, beautiful and able to be easily spotted by predators, must be very strong to place himself in such a dangerous situation! he's the perfect sperm donor! and hence male birds became more colorful than female birds, placing themselves in danger of being spotted miles off by predators.but the need to procreate makes the risk worth it.
(the male predators themselves had to prove their strength also through their beauty in that by being colorful and ornamented they became visible to their prey from miles away!! and their willingness to lose their camouflage and be readily visible became a demonstration that they were strong enough to catch their prey without needing to blend into their surroundings so as to get closer unseen) and hence the peacock had that bushy colorful tail that attracts danger from afar, but also makes the peahen hot for him Etc.
the female animals' selection for beauty over the thousands of years shifted beauty to the males, who had to be more and more colorful, ornamented and decorated to stand a chance to procreate. finally, what finished beauty for female animals was the females' need to blend in and camouflage from the predators as they spent long periods incubating eggs and watching over the young. and it was needful for them to lose their beauty so as not attract attention.

BEAUTY IS AN ADVERT FOR GOOD GENES
now here is something few people know...
beauty as an indicator of strength is not isolated to animals only. humans also prove the link between beauty and genetic superiority. it has been proven by research after research: beautiful people have stronger genes than ugly people.meaning beautiful people get sick less and on average live longer than ugly people. research has even proven attractive  people are less likely to get tinnitus, asthma, diabetes, and high blood pressure!! The Beauty & Strength Combo is mother-nature's ideal. but how did the humans' Beauty & Weakness Combo happen? how did beauty end up the property of the weak females?

THE PATRIARCHY STRIKES

what went wrong for humans can only be understood under the auspices of the Patriarchy...the Rule of the Father. where the animal kingdom is matriarchal and the female has complete, undisputed reproductive rights, the human kingdom is patriarchal and the male enforces his reproductive will upon the female. (a will the human female defies as soon as she gains independence as seen by the paradoxical rise of abortions as feminism gains power) . the genius of the Patriarchy was in keeping women powerless and forcing them to look to men for survival, in turn forcing them to procreate with undesirable men to survive. while that worked wonders in motivating every man, handsome and ugly, by promising them each a wife, in exchange that they built civilization and fought in wars to protect their wives and children; it hurt men in the long run becoz since women selected men for their Provider Status (and not looks) it meant, for 6 000 yrs, mainly ugly men got to make ugly babies, since the ugliest most brutal men were likely to be the conquerors and hence got the most women. these men made ugly babies that got to make ugly babies that got to make ugly babies that got to make ugly babies and so on and so on, century after century , ending in the current year 2018 with ugly men and gorgeous women. Just like the female animals controlled the Mate Selection process and selected for beauty among the males ending with the males becoming more beautiful (than the females) to qualify; so also the male humans controlled the Mate Selection process and selected for beauty among the women ending with the women becoming more beautiful (than the males) to qualify. and hence today weak women own the beauty while strong men own the ugliness; which is something not happening in nature and in Heaven.

HOW HAVE WOMEN HANDLED BEAUTY?
Badly. women clearly cant handle beauty. the billion dollar beauty & makeup industry doesn't make sense for a gender that is celebrated as the Fairer Sex! it would make sense if it was all for the uglier men. or let me put it this way: IF WOMEN ARE BEAUTIFUL AND MEN UGLY WHY DO WOMEN SPEND SO MUCH ON MAKEUP & BEAUTY PRODUCTS TO ATTRACT THESE UGLY CREATURES?? it makes zero sense. it gets even more weirder, coz the most beautiful women usually end up marrying the ugliest dudes!! . and there is more; (this one never fails to amaze me) have you seen how when gay and transsexual men put on makeup and get beauty treatments they end up looking more beautiful than women?? its crazy!!!
Looking at the long list of "body image" problems and movements besetting women: fat acceptance, body acceptance, #SaggyBoobsMatter, skin bleaching, booty enlargement, breasts enlargements etc.... so many beauty problems for a gender that claims to own beauty. the only things women seem to own are INSECURITY AND LOW SELF ESTEEM. maybe they were not meant to own the beauty in the first place, becoz its bringing them more headaches than smiles....which would make sense becoz women are afraid of a beautiful man more than men are afraid of a beautiful woman. just see how a woman blushes and sweats before a beautiful man and you'll understand. plus the totally crazy way women will throw panties at a handsome singer during a concert is proof enough women cant handle male beauty without going nuts. who remembers the old Michael Jackson concerts where he used to kiss women and they would faint!! if the man is powerful enough his beauty makes women more visually stimulated than men are visually stimulated when it comes to women.the very same thing that is happening, that has been happening, in the Animal Kingdom all along.

HOW HAVE MEN HANDLED REPRODUCTIVE POWER?

its been a freakshow. ever wondered why in nature animals have almost zero disabilities and physical disorders; but humans have disabilities of every nature everywhere that almost every hood has a disabled person? you have men to thank for that curse.mother-nature having given women wombs also gave them an eye for healthy genes. a woman will easily tell you if someone is ill or un-well while men will wait for more radical symptoms to appear before spotting an un-well individual. its why women dominate the nursing industry.they pick up on problems faster than men. its part of the mothering package.in animals this sense was improved to almost magical proportions.animals can even smell disease. here is a little fun fact to Google; dogs can smell disease in humans!!! for ages dogs have been known to sniff out cancer well before a person even suspected they had it. on top of that dogs can smell headaches, low blood pressure, TB etc. its amazing. (both dogs and cats can sense a pregnancy before a woman knows she is pregnant. they pick up on the chemicals a pregnant woman releases) . if dogs can do these things then it means animals in nature can do it. maybe even more reliably. the proof being that animals have an almost zero disability rate; a strong indicator females can steer away from diseased mates. unlike in humans were men have reproductive power and force women to mate with them regardless. meaning women have no choice in screening and separating the healthy from the unhealthy. result? all sorts of physical infirmities cast on the human race. but can women really separate the healthy from the unhealthy the way animals do? oh yes!! We may have science to thank for medical tests to confirm health or disease; but nature always had her plans that even if science didn't progress we were going to be able to detect disease. Joy Milne, for example; is a woman who can smell Parkinson's disease. maybe if women had been given the chance to fully mature this ability of smelling diseases women would be as efficient as dogs in sensing disease in people. yes, disease can be smelt. e.g Kidney disease can cause breath to smell like urine. also, there is an incurable genetic disease that cause urine to have a distinct smell. diseases and disorders can be smelled. and its curious how women, the womb owners, have a more powerful sense of smell than men. and its even more curious how a woman's sense of smell is even more sensitive/acute when she is ovulating (when a mature egg is released from the ovary ready to be fertilized) all signs that point to the fact that had women been given the chance to own and develop their sexuality and reproductive power from the start without men enforcing their will on them through the patriarchy maybe, just maybe, the freakshow of disabilities that beset humanity would not exist. men have doomed the human race with disability and disease by owning women.and worse, they have cursed themselves with ugliness in the process.

(c) ubunja. copy & paste allowed. additions & subtractions not allowed.

hey bro what does I love u as a friend first meant

cc ubunja

zainmaxwell:
hey bro what does I love u as a friend first meant

cc ubunja

Lol, mehn dis gals sha

zainmaxwell:
hey bro what does I love u as a friend first meant

cc ubunja

thats the start of a Friendzone. tell her you dont want that and delete her from your life. coz you'll never taste her pvssy, if you do it will either be out of pitty for you or when she wana retire from fvcking around.either reasons no self-respecting man can accept.
find it in you to walk away from her. go to where you are celebrated not tolerated.

Ive learnt frm u wat even my pops cudent teach me nd for dat reason i respect u much..ur post is always a stunner bro

ubunja:

thats the start of a Friendzone. tell her you dont want that and delete her from your life. coz you'll never taste her pvssy, if you do it will either be out of pitty for you or when she wana retire from fvcking around.either reasons no self-respecting man can accept.
find it in you to walk away from her. go to where you are celebrated not tolerated.

yes I did dat but she was like I never did love her den I said to her too I loved u as a friend first did I do nice?

ubunja:

thats the start of a Friendzone. tell her you dont want that and delete her from your life. coz you'll never taste her pvssy, if you do it will either be out of pitty for you or when she wana retire from fvcking around.either reasons no self-respecting man can accept.
find it in you to walk away from her. go to where you are celebrated not tolerated.

yes I said d same to her and she said I never did love her so was I wrong?

ubunja:

thats the start of a Friendzone. tell her you dont want that and delete her from your life. coz you'll never taste her pvssy, if you do it will either be out of pitty for you or when she wana retire from fvcking around.either reasons no self-respecting man can accept.
find it in you to walk away from her. go to where you are celebrated not tolerated.

Hi bro, please can I send you a mail

zainmaxwell:
yes I said d same to her and she said I never did love her so was I wrong?

being a Nice Guy is doing nice things expecting sex. so no. i dont think you did nice.
if gal is vexing you for no reason, just walk away bro. you told her you loved her so if she still is playing mind games she is nit the one

HeWrites:


Hi bro, please can I send you a mail

yes sir
gnuversalsoldier@gmail.com

ubunja:
yes sir gnuversalsoldier@gmail.com

Sent please check

HeWrites:


Sent please check

will do

daharry:
Ive learnt frm u wat even my pops cudent teach me nd for dat reason i respect u much..ur post is always a stunner bro

im humbled bro.

A very interesting educative read about the beauty of the sexes. I love the post but then i should add that women marrying men just for daily bread and survival partakes only in Africa. In Europe and America the ladies date only the men they find attractive. I heard that in Europe an average lady might get offended if u offer her sex for money.now if Africa on a financial level was as comfortable as Europe then a situation might occur where ladies only date the men they find attractive ...now in such a scenario the average nigerian who depends on using money to attract a woman might have a hectic time trying to get a woman. Having said this i earnestly believe its good for ugly men to get married to a very beautiful women so as to make beautiful babies cos it will be disastrous when an ugly man gets married to an ugly woman.

lefulefu:
A very interesting educative read about the beauty of the sexes. I love the post but then i should add that women marrying men just for daily bread and survival partakes only in Africa. In Europe and America the ladies date only the men they find attractive. I heard that in Europe an average lady might get offended if u offer her sex for money.now if Africa on a financial level was as comfortable as Europe then a situation might occur where ladies only date the men they find attractive ...now in such a scenario the average nigerian who depends on using money to attract a woman might have a hectic time trying to get a woman. Having said this i earnestly believe its good for ugly men to get married to a very beautiful women so as to make beautiful babies cos it will be disastrous when an ugly man gets married to an ugly woman.

lefulefu bro. but women marrying men for attractiveness in Europe is something that just happened less than 40 yrs ago. just a few decades. the damage of 6 000 yrs cant be unmade in 40 yrs!!!
lol, ugly men marrying beautiful women is how we got in this mess in the first place. ugly men must just keep their sperm to themselves. and no, im not handsome.but truth is truth. ugly people must just not make babies. kinda radical but...

ubunja:

lefulefu bro. but women marrying men for attractiveness in Europe is something that just happened less than 40 yrs ago. just a few decades. the damage of 6 000 yrs cant be unmade in 40 yrs!!!
lol, ugly men marrying beautiful women is how we got in this mess in the first place. ugly men must just keep their sperm to themselves. and no, im not handsome.but truth is truth. ugly people must just not make babies. kinda radical but...

ehn even if its less than 40 yrs that it started happening in Europe its already and with time the effect will show. Now if Africa were as prosperous as Europe and women became less dependent on men then such a scenario might occur too in Africa. Women will the freedom to choose more attractive mates but this will be detrimental to ugly men and their money might become worthless since such women would have the capacity to earn their own money. I think the status quo in Africa where rich ugly men use money to attract beautiful young ladies is an arrangement very very convenient for many men. And this your believe that ugly men shouldn't breed with beautiful women so as not to produce ugly children is kinder extreme my brother and believe u me...when ugly men breed with beautiful women,they never produce ugly childre.God has done it in a way that when a beautiful lady takes in for an ugly man the children will come out very beautiful. Take for example the late odumegwu ojukwu and bianca. Ojukwu isn't handsome but the children that bianca birthed for him were all beautiful. So ugly men should marry beautiful ladies so as to eliminate those ugly genes in the next generation.

lefulefu:
ehn even if its less than 40 yrs that it started happening in Europe its already and with time the effect will show. Now if Africa were as prosperous as Europe and women became less dependent on men then such a scenario might occur too in Africa. Women will the freedom to choose more attractive mates but this will be detrimental to ugly men and their money might become worthless since such women would have the capacity to earn their own money. I think the status quo in Africa where rich ugly men use money to attract beautiful young ladies is an arrangement very very convenient for many men. And this your believe that ugly men shouldn't breed with beautiful women so as not to produce ugly children is kinder extreme my brother and believe u me...when ugly men breed with beautiful women,they never produce ugly childre.God has done it in a way that when a beautiful lady takes in for an ugly man the children will come out very beautiful. Take for example the late odumegwu ojukwu and bianca. Ojukwu isn't handsome but the children that bianca birthed for him were all beautiful.

imagine just how much more beautiful those children would have been had their father been more beautiful.... thats the point of this post.
if as you are saying: ugly man + beautiful woman = beautiful children.....then beautiful man + beautiful woman = double beautiful children

ubunja:

imagine just how much more beautiful those children would have been had their father been more beautiful.... thats the point of this post.
if as you are saying: ugly man + beautiful woman = beautiful children.....then beautiful man + beautiful woman = double beautiful children

ok while the handsome men are breeding with the beautiful women then what do u want the ugly men to be doing? ..breeding with ugly women?...nah this is not how its done. Even in the breeding of animals and especially in dogs.if u want to breed a new puppy u will choose a beautiful looking husky female dog with fine mane to mate with a male dog that is of local breed and its not beautiful to the eye. The puppies they produce always comes out beautiful.so it is in humans. Anyway God has made it that most of the super rich men are ugly hence they can use their their wealth to attract the most beautiful ladies.

lefulefu:
ok while the handsome men are breeding with the beautiful women then what do u want the ugly men to be doing? ..breeding with ugly women?...nah this is not how its done. Even in the breeding of animals and especially in dogs.if u want to breed a new puppy u will choose a beautiful looking husky female dog with fine mane to mate with a male dog that is of local breed and its not beautiful to the eye. The puppies they produce always comes out beautiful.so it is in humans. Anyway God has made it that most of the super rich men are ugly hence they can use their their wealth to attract the most beautiful ladies.

no God didnt make the rich ugly so they get women with the money.
the ugly dont need to be made to stop making babies, already they have stoped themselves with their acceptance of sex dolls and addiction to porn. on the other side Rape Laws keep getting widened to deter as many undesirable men as possible from getting it on with women.

But ubunja,minus use of beauty,I thought in the animal world,it is still the battle of the fittest because if the lion is just beautiful(good mane)without power it can't keep its pride of lioness because a stronger lion will just kill it.And with other animals also its the strongest that mate not beauty alone,I thought that was how animals worked since the weak animals lose dominance battles and get killed or wounded...

Bravo! Pornelieus Hubert
I thought this lengthy writeup would be a potpourri of meaningless words salad just as Mr. Billyonai.re dishes out but after reading, I must say, this really makes sense.

Ontoog:
But ubunja,minus use of beauty,I thought in the animal world,it is still the battle of the fittest because if the lion is just beautiful(good mane)without power it can't keep its pride of lioness because a stronger lion will just kill it.And with other animals also its the strongest that mate not beauty alone,I thought that was how animals worked since the weak animals lose dominance battles and get killed or wounded...

you got only half of it Ontoog. Nature is Survival of the Fittest but "fittest" does not mean Strongest. thats why its not called Survival of the Strongest. "fittest" in evolution means THE ONE THAT MAKES THE MOST COPIES/BABIES OF ITSELF THAT WILL LIVE ON AFTER HE'S GONE. like Abraham left a whole country of decendents all carrying his genes (the isrealites) thats what survival of the fittest means. you die but live on in your children coz they have your genes..and the more kids you have the fitter you are.
in animals beauty is strength coz to survive you have to blend in and hide from predators.therefore any animal that refuses to blend in but instead chooses to be colourful and pretty and attract danger HAS TO BE STRONG and he will have females to make babies with and thus he becomes the FiTTEST THAT SURVIVES meaning he becomes the one who has many children carrying his genes.

QuietHammer:
Bravo! Pornelieus Hubert
I thought this lengthy writeup would be a potpourri of meaningless words salad just as Mr. Billyonai.re dishes out but after reading, I must say, this really makes sense.

lol that pornelieus name lives on i see
thanks bro. much respect

"Men almost became more beautiful than women". Ubunja and your theory is that if women only mated the mainly handsome men and over time for procreation men would have been as beautiful as women if not more. Then i started to wonder what then is the factor that has produced these women who are more beautiful than majority men if adhering to selecting only the good looking men in the process of procreation is your theory that would have made men more beautiful than women. Is it that doesnt matter if their fathers were UGLY MEN yet they still produce beautiful women?

WORDWORLD:
"Men almost became more beautiful than women". Ubu nja and your theory is that if women only mated the mainly handsome men and over time for procreation men would have been as beautiful as women if not more. Then i started to wonder what then is the factor that has produced these women who are more beautiful than majority men if adhering to selecting only the good looking men in the process of their procreation is your theory that would have made men more beautiful than women. Is that it doesnt matter if their fathers were UGLY MEN yet they still produce beautiful women?

Nawa o.
Which kind brain teaser be this?

AntiBrutus:


Nawa o. Which kind brain teaser be this?

Hehehe AntiBrutus lets see how it goes with the MASTER.

WORDWORLD:
"Men almost became more beautiful than women". Ubunja and your theory is that if women only mated the mainly handsome men and over time for procreation men would have been as beautiful as women if not more. Then i started to wonder what then is the factor that has produced these women who are more beautiful than majority men if adhering to selecting only the good looking men in the process of procreation is your theory that would have made men more beautiful than women. Is that it doesnt matter if their fathers were UGLY MEN yet they still produce beautiful women?

women have not had the luxury of choosing men for their beauty. its the men who have been choosing. women get chosen.

Even tho europe was just getting out of this mess recently,



it occur to me dat their men ar getting more handsome than afrian's which further assert ur claim ubunja.




Truth is bitter o,but we africans ar ugly i swear.just look at those africans players abroad and compare them to all those jack wilshere,greyish,chamberling and u wil knw beta.



I hardly get sick o.may be,just may be

Your posts kinda gets too long. You made some valid points tho. However where I think you missing the point is not understanding that the scales used in measuring beauty for both gender isn't the same. Men are free to look like men/masculine, men are also free to look like women/feminine. In both cases they will still be considered handsome, cute etc. The stakes are a bit higher for women. They are only allowed to look like women. I.e their physical appearance must show absolute effeminate qualities. The glow must always be there for the society to consider them beautiful. And nature itself isn't constant. Their appearance changes with time but since the yardstick for measuring their own beauty is based on a constant glow/feminist look, any other changes to that is considered unattractive. The scales here aren't the same, so comparisons might be spurious.

ubunja:

women have not had the luxury of choosing men for their beauty. its the men who have been choosing. women get chosen.

You mean because women are chosen for their beauty, hence they give birth to daughters who are beautiful like their mothers while their sons are less attractive? Is that how it works by CONSTANT in human reproduction so that when it is reversed with women doing the choosing and choosing exclusively handsome men the males produced will be more good looking than the females. Is that how it works?

Neurotika:
Your posts kinda gets too long. You made some valid points tho. However where I think you missing the point is not understanding that the scales used in measuring beauty for both gender isn't the same. Men are free to look like men/masculine, men are also free to look like women/feminine. In both cases they will still be considered handsome, cute etc. The stakes are a bit higher for women. They are only allowed to look like women. I.e their physical appearance must show absolute effeminate qualities. The glow must always be there for the society to consider them beautiful. And nature itself isn't constant. Their appearance changes with time but since the yardstick for measuring their own beauty is based on a constant glow/feminist look, any other changes to that is considered unattractive. The scales here aren't the same, so comparisons might be spurious.

YOU GOT IT. FIRSTLY, THE SCALES ARE NOT THE SAME. AND THEN COMPARING HUMANS WITH THE ANIMAL WORLD WHILE BEING SELECTIVE WITH THESE ANIMALS IS NOT A HOLISTIC APPROACH TO THIS JUDGEMENT. ARE ALL MALE ANIMALS MORE BEAUTIFUL THAN THEIR FEMALES? THAT ANATOMY AS TO WHAT EVER ANIMAL IS WHAT DEFINES THAT ANIMAL. A LION LOOKS AS SO BECAUSE THAT IS HOW A LION SHOULD LOOK LIKE AND NOT BECAUSE THE LIONESS DOES THE SELECTION OF THE MALE THAT MATES THEM. IF A REVERSED THEORY IS APPLIED WILL THE FEMALE LIONS START LOOKING DIFFERENTLY SO MUCH THAT THERE BE CHANGES IN THEIR FEATURES? WOULD THE MALE PEACOCK NOT HAD HAVE THAT ELEGANT TAIL BUT THE POSSESION OF THE FEMALE? (ubunja)

Neurotika:
Your posts kinda gets too long. You made some valid points tho. However where I think you missing the point is not understanding that the scales used in measuring beauty for both gender isn't the same. Men are free to look like men/masculine, men are also free to look like women/feminine. In both cases they will still be considered handsome, cute etc. The stakes are a bit higher for women. They are only allowed to look like women. I.e their physical appearance must show absolute effeminate qualities. The glow must always be there for the society to consider them beautiful. And nature itself isn't constant. Their appearance changes with time but since the yardstick for measuring their own beauty is based on a constant glow/feminist look, any other changes to that is considered unattractive. The scales here aren't the same, so comparisons might be spurious.

men are free to look like women but women are not free to look like men? what does that mean?? and their " glow" must always be there to be considered beautiful? bet you never seen boyish tomboys who are drop dead beautiful but looking less feminine.
"the scales are not the same?" meaning what?