Previous posts in this discussion:
PostBeauty, Brains, and Human Survival (John Heelan, -UK, 11/29/17 7:26 am)
Istvan Simon (28 November) rebutted my earlier comment, in which I opined, "it is the quality of female brains that is far more important than the eye-candy packaging that comes with it."
Presumably Istvan and I disagree on the order of magnitude of importance of the packaging vs the brains. As Istvan points out, survival of the human race depends on the evolutionary hard-wiring of male-female attraction and its resulting fecundity. Istvan rightly says the level of that attraction changes with cultural ideals over time. He further comments that "Males are wired to be attracted to (beautiful) females." I suggest that the word "beautiful" is superfluous, as it ignores the necessary broadening of the gene pool by liaisons across the whole gamut of "beauty" necessary to ensure human survival.
JE comments: Eye of the beholder? I'm still interested in exploring the notion of male beauty across time and cultures. Istvan, what about Hungary and Brazil?
And what about the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century portraits of men, which often accentuated their pot bellies? Sculpted, six-pack abs were not the thing at that time.
Colonel George Onslow (18th Century)