Briefly summed up, Westermarck’s theory is that in painting, tattooing, and otherwise decorating his person, primitive man’s original and conscious object was to beautify himself for the sake of gaining an advantage in courtship; whereas my theory is that all these decorations originally subserved useful purposes alone, and that even where they subsequently may have served in some instances as means to please the women, this was not as things of beauty but indirectly and unintentionally through their association with rank, wealth, distinction in war, prowess, and manly qualities in general.  When Dobrizhoffer says (II., 12) that the Abipones, “more ambitious to be dreaded by their enemies than to be loved, to terrify than attract beholders, think the more they are scarred and sunburnt, the handsomer they are,” he illustrates glaringly the slovenly and question-begging use of terms to which I have just referred; for, as his own reference to being loved and to attracting beholders shows, he does not use the word “handsome” in an esthetic sense, but as a synonyme for what is pleasing or worthy of approval on other grounds.  If the scars of these Indians do please the women it is not because they are considered beautiful, but because they are tokens of martial prowess.  To a savage woman nothing is so useful as manly valor, and therefore nothing so agreeable as the signs of it.  In that respect the average woman’s nature has not changed.  The German high-school girl admires the scars in the face of a “corps-student,” not, certainly, because she considers them beautiful, but because they stand for a daredevil, masculine spirit which pleases her.

When the Rev. R. Taylor wrote (321) that among the New Zealanders “to have fine tattooed faces was the great ambition of the young, both to render themselves attractive to the ladies and conspicuous in war,” he would have shown himself a better philosopher if he had written that by making themselves conspicuous in war with their tattooing they also make themselves attractive to the “ladies.”  That the sense of beauty is not concerned here becomes obvious when we include Robley’s testimony (28, 15) that a Maori chief’s great object was to excite fear among enemies, for which purpose in the older days he “rendered his countenance as terrible as possible with charcoal and red ochre”; while in more recent times,

“not only to become more terrible in war, when fighting was carried on at close quarters, but to appear more distinguished and attractive to the opposite sex, must certainly be included”

among the objects of tattooing.  It is hardly necessary to point out that if we accept the sexual selection theory this expert testimony lands us in insuperable difficulty; for it is clearly impossible that on the same island, and in the same race, the painting and tattooing of the face should have the effect of terrifying the men and of appearing beautiful to the women.  But if we discard the beauty theory and follow my suggestion, we have no difficulty whatever.  Then we may grant that the facial daubs or skin mutilations may seem terrible or hideous to an enemy and yet please the women, because the women do not regard them as things of beauty, but as distinguishing marks of valiant warriors.