Women better looking than men? Think again!

Posted on January 27, 2004 20:27 PM EST

Recently, I read someone mention with great assurance and confidence that among humans, the women are generally better looking than the men. Oh, really? Think again!

I had pondered this issue a long time back, when watching Discovery or National Geographic as a kid. I am sure we have all noticed that among animals, often the males seem to be more attractive. The males in many species are... for want of a better term... better endowed. Bigger plummage, more colorful feathers, longer mane, grand tusks, impressive horns, rippling muscles, so on and so forth. The over-all effect is more attractive, ostensibly to attract the females. If the males among other animals look so much better compared to the females, why, I pondered, were females generally better looking among humans.

Then it occurred to me to wonder how an animal looked at humans. What does it see? It sees that even among humans, the male is generally better endowed. Bigger bone structure, more muscles, more hair all over, more powerful voice, in some cases bigger paunch, etc. Comparatively, the curvaceous soft-voiced female looks frail, weak and mostly bald, despite the long hair limited to the head. And more often than not, it's the man who smells like himself, while the woman disguises her personal scent with some horrible smelling stuff. Clearly, to the clear and unbiased animal's mind, the man looks more impressive, confident and capable. So, other animals must see men as being better looking than women.

Conclusion: In most species, including humans, the male is generally better looking than the female.

My ego would like to believe that. The ego is willing, but the flesh is weak. My flesh (along with his co-conspirators my mind, heart and soul) continues to firmly regard the human female form to be the epitome of physical beauty!

Dang, gotta watch that Britney's Toxic video yet again!