freudling
Member
- Reaction score
- 0
male pattern baldness is undeniable. The "horseshoe." It is like some piece of twisted art to look at. That classic, in abundance horseshoe pattern. The hairs around the sides stay until we die, save for alopecia areta. But I think the latter is less frequent than male pattern baldness. The purpose? It marks maturity, a trait selected for regarding reproductive attractiveness.
Ok, so baldness is not that attractive, but our genes are our genes. It could happend then that, over time in x culture, if a full head of hair was that important, future generations would have a larger abudance of hair. That is, women would mate with men who have full heads of hair, and not with bald men. The latter genes would fade and future generations will have a greater amount of complimented hair genes from both sides (Gene AB: Hair gene from mother and hair gene from father, both dominant). As it is, we have a mix out there.
A retort maybe that, why would this mark maturity if some very young men lose their hair (19-20, sometimes younger). Well, that is young for us now, but it was half life not too long ago. Males go through puberty around 13-18, so it makes sense that male pattern baldness would start shortly thereafter. In some cases, it is more gradual or appears later in life. Females go through puberty around 9-13. So we are geared to reproduce at a young age.
But the "bald trait" is still around, and attractive women reproduce with bald/balding men. Usually, men with nice hair look younger and better than bald men. What is happening?
In research regarding what traits females look for in men associated with (a) a short-term relationship (b) a long-term relationship, their opinions were a consensus, but each of the latter cases brought forth different conclusions. In (a), females looked for more manly, rugged men. This would be the tall, dark and handsome with little regard for brains. But when (b) was discussed, that image left the scene, and women preferred brains over the looks. They stated that men should be grounded, looks playing somewhat of a role but not to the extent of the (a) scenario.
So baldness may even attract a long-term companion. However, in todays age, this gene maybe deemed "residual" with little evoluntionary purpose now. Although, it still might attract females. So, we have a trait that was selected for years past, that is now "residual", but seems to linger in that females are still attracted to it.
Think of it this way. Other traits over time have disappeared, since they are no longer needed and no longer attractive. If full-headed men, as a trait, was that important, that dominant, it would be disappearing rapidly.
Now, I know that a full-headed male can produce and balding son if he possesses a recessive male pattern baldness gene and his wife has a recessive one too, which is coded in the son. So, perhaps we have two things at play here: that women are attracted to bald men for the maturity aspect, and also by genetic chance: that the parents were both full-headed but their genetic combination brought about a male pattern baldness inflicted son.
Ok, so baldness is not that attractive, but our genes are our genes. It could happend then that, over time in x culture, if a full head of hair was that important, future generations would have a larger abudance of hair. That is, women would mate with men who have full heads of hair, and not with bald men. The latter genes would fade and future generations will have a greater amount of complimented hair genes from both sides (Gene AB: Hair gene from mother and hair gene from father, both dominant). As it is, we have a mix out there.
A retort maybe that, why would this mark maturity if some very young men lose their hair (19-20, sometimes younger). Well, that is young for us now, but it was half life not too long ago. Males go through puberty around 13-18, so it makes sense that male pattern baldness would start shortly thereafter. In some cases, it is more gradual or appears later in life. Females go through puberty around 9-13. So we are geared to reproduce at a young age.
But the "bald trait" is still around, and attractive women reproduce with bald/balding men. Usually, men with nice hair look younger and better than bald men. What is happening?
In research regarding what traits females look for in men associated with (a) a short-term relationship (b) a long-term relationship, their opinions were a consensus, but each of the latter cases brought forth different conclusions. In (a), females looked for more manly, rugged men. This would be the tall, dark and handsome with little regard for brains. But when (b) was discussed, that image left the scene, and women preferred brains over the looks. They stated that men should be grounded, looks playing somewhat of a role but not to the extent of the (a) scenario.
So baldness may even attract a long-term companion. However, in todays age, this gene maybe deemed "residual" with little evoluntionary purpose now. Although, it still might attract females. So, we have a trait that was selected for years past, that is now "residual", but seems to linger in that females are still attracted to it.
Think of it this way. Other traits over time have disappeared, since they are no longer needed and no longer attractive. If full-headed men, as a trait, was that important, that dominant, it would be disappearing rapidly.
Now, I know that a full-headed male can produce and balding son if he possesses a recessive male pattern baldness gene and his wife has a recessive one too, which is coded in the son. So, perhaps we have two things at play here: that women are attracted to bald men for the maturity aspect, and also by genetic chance: that the parents were both full-headed but their genetic combination brought about a male pattern baldness inflicted son.
Thick hair like a woman looks weird on men past a certain age anyway and doesnt match the face in my opinion.