this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2026
23 points (92.6% liked)

No Stupid Questions

48460 readers
1012 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I don't mean like as an individual I've got a certain je ne sais 'justfuckmyshitup'.

I mean when did "does my hair look good ?" become a thing to worry about for worry ? Do you think birds worry about their hair ? Or horses ? Or amoebas ?

all 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Wrufieotnak@feddit.org 4 points 3 days ago

Do birds worry about their hair? Well... They dont have hair, so probably not.

But do birds worry about their plumage?
Yeah, probably they do.
Because there are many examples of birds using their plumage to attract mates, best known is probably the peacock.

In short, my thinking is that you need sexual procreation and a certain minimum intelligence to care for their outward appearance (e.g. I don't think ants care for outward looks). So probably all mammals and a lot of birds definitely do care "about their hair". But insects and fish do not.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago

Chimps have been observed using bits of straw as jewelry, so I imagine at least our last common ancestor.

[–] sbeak@sopuli.xyz 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I would imagine that, after multicellular life capable of sexual reproduction developed, there was an incentive for creatures of all kinds to develop techniques to attract mates. And before eyes became a thing, I would imagine that things like scents were (and still are for many species!) important for attracting mates. It definitely goes far beyond mammals, the development of visual, olfactory, and other sensual features for attracting mates is important for all kinds of species that sexually reproduce.

But looks aren't just for showing off to mates. They might also serve other purposes, like warding off predators or protecting itself from the environment. For instance, our eyelashes were developed to protect our delicate eyes from sand, dust, and other small particles, and the colourful appearance of some frogs indicate that they are poisonous.

Our looks are also how we identify others. For social creatures like us humans, prominent features like our eyes, hair, and ears are used to figure out who you are interacting with. This isn't unique to humans and isn't exclusive of visual features either. Dogs can distinguish between trusted individuals and strangers using a combination of sight and scent. Whales have strong sense of family and can identify others through, among other ways, their calls. Dolphins are similar with a pattern of chirps to identify their friends and family.

But if you really want to be pedantic, you could argue that the "look" can be defined as the physical (outer) shape of an organism, in which case the shapes of the receptors, cell membrane, etc. of unicellular microorganisms can be the different "looks" that have developed for different purposes. This would include viruses too, which are only partly alive, which might mean that this idea of "developing looks" could extend before life itself existed!

I didn't do Biology in school so don't quote me on any of this!

Some birds decorate themselves. My mother had a cockatiel that would perforate colorful paper into strips with her beak and pluck them off to place in her tail.

[–] Swaus01@piefed.social 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

sorry i'm very tired and didn't read the second bit of text, so i responded as if you did mean "je ne sais qua "justfuckmyshitup"
I am that relative, so for me it's 0 steps.

A couple of my relatives have very curly hair and don't have to worry as much about how it looks, so i think we're predisposed to that.

If you come from a culture that does certain hair shaping techniques, then you're gonna have a bunch of ancestors who didn't have to worry how their hair looked. Also i guess there are families where all the men shave their head. Seems like a common thing for eastern europeans nowadays.

Birds and cats do seem to care about their plumage/fur, grooming it with their mouths. But they all shape it in the same way. So human stylisation must ultimately arise from A) our overall low hair coverage, making us obsess more with the big concentration of head hair and B) our drive for "specialisation" signalling. We historically have liked to show our roles in society through clothes, and still do.

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 days ago

The question in the title is essentially unanswerable. It's not even possible to point to where an awareness of attraction as opposed to just existing started, or if there even was a starting point.

That being said, chances are that it began at the same point as humans became self aware. Most mammals and plenty of other critters put some degree or another of energy into maximizing their presentation, even if only during mating season.

At some point, any creature that becomes self aware is also going to start seeing the benefits of caring about that.

I suspect you'd be looking at somewhere before homo sapiens, but after whatever "missing link". Not that I'm confident in the whole idea of a missing link, but that's tangential. What isn't tangential is that a lot of the early human-ish critters exhibited signs of self awareness to some degree, so I can't imagine that sapiens were the first to have it. I seem to recall there being primitive equivalents to combs and such as far back as like ,habilis? Don't bet money on my memory though

[–] kubica@fedia.io 5 points 3 days ago

I don't know, something related to using mirrors if I had to guess,

Edit: Giving it a bit more thought many animals still care about their plumage etc without anything like that involved...

[–] Astronut@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 days ago

If cats didn’t worry about their hair then why are they always licking it?

[–] Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 3 points 3 days ago

Even amoebas have 1 hair