Agree with explanations above.

Behavioral science generally suggests that the things people and animals find attractive about the mates they choose will generally be those things which directly relate to their ability to procreate and care for offspring (or the offspring of their families), or to things which are correlated with those abilities.

So, in some instances, bright feathers are not themselves helpful to survival, but other genes which are located closely enough on a chromosome that do help survival may tend to appear along with the bright colors. In that way, the bright colors become a sort of proxy for the actual survival trait, which could be a stronger immune system, for example.

Blue eyes don't have much survival value, but are strongly correlated with pale skin, which has a survival advantage in the extreme north where lower levels of sunshine can result in vitamin D deficiencies in people with darker skin.

There's also the imprinting effect, most famously recognized in baby ducks. Numerous cases of orphaned ducks raised by a different species show the sad result of an adult duck imprinted with the visual appearance of the wrong species, forever chasing females that will never mate with him.

Individual human behavior is extremely complicated and difficult to predict (though it's easier to predict the behavior of crowds or even entire populations). But there evidence of a multitude of stimuli affecting mate choice among humans.

One recent study of the reaction of both sexes to male facial hair found that, when bearded man is among a group of unbearded men, he will tend to be rated as more attractive by both men and women. On the other hand, in a group of bearded men, the clean shaven one will win out. So, in humans at least, there appears to be some value to being the trendsetter, rather than the trend follower.

As for bright colors and sex preferences, men were virtual peacocks in centuries past, favoring some of the most absurdly gawdy fashions, while the women were considerably more muted.

Today, we have so many proxies for appearance, however, that a man's wardrobe might not tell the whole story. He may wear black and navy suits, but drive a very colorful and expensive sports car, just as an example.

Moreover, not all traits are meant to signal attractiveness to the desired mate, but to competitors for that mate. Big antlers don't have to be attractive to female deer. If they effectively signal "keep away" to other, lesser endowed bucks, it still confers an advantage. And we know that a lot of human behavior is mean to send signals to our potential rivals. The old adage that "women dress for other women" (and probably the same for men) may well be true.

But I still don't understand what this is supposed to have to do with the prevalence of one gender over another in Poser content, unless we're saying that most buyers of content (including a large number of straight women) are choosing it specifically for prurient reasons only. Perhaps that's the case...

But if so, why? This clearly isn't the case in the other visual arts, or even in other CGI venues.  So what is it about Poser (and Daz Studio), then, that makes it different?

---

PoserPro 2014, PS CS5.5 Ext, Nikon D300. Win 8, i7-4770 @ 3.4 GHz, AMD Radeon 8570, 12 GB RAM.