Lemme run this idea past yall

**Bookworm** · 11-17-2008, 01:16 AM

Women have a genetic predisposition to self-objectification.

Looking at things from a Darwinian perspective, the only purpose any living organism has is to pass on its genetics to the following generation. in order to pass on those genetics, a mammal must mate with another of their species. To be successful is to pass on your genetics to the most possible members of the next generation. in order to do this, women must make themselves as ideal as possible in the male perspective, conforming not to what they believe to be the Platonic "Form" (ideal embodiment of something) but what they believe to be men's view of the Form of the woman. Since we cannot truly experience what we believe to be the Form of the Woman, man's preferences have changed with time slowly changing what women believe man's view of the Form of the woman to be. This slow change is what has moved us from larger to thinner women, brunettes to blondes, etc. The drive for women to idealize themselves is undeniable, and in essence, women want nothing more than to be objectified by as many men as possible, to become that sex object and thus pass on their successfully conforming (thus more capable and therefore superior) genes onto the next generation in as many iterations and variations as possible.

thoughts?

note: I don't really believe this, especially the conclusion, but it'll be a really fun paper to write!

**Lord Bluntmasta** · 11-17-2008, 01:19 AM

Ideally this should be true, but every man has different tastes and it leaves out the fact that humans are capable of complex communication thus they can form relationships beyond appearances, hormones and simple communication.

However the same idea swings both ways

**GrowTech** · 11-17-2008, 01:20 AM

Prett confusing.

**Bookworm** · 11-17-2008, 01:23 AM

Originally Posted by Lord Bluntmasta

Ideally this should be true, but every man has different tastes and it leaves out the fact that humans are capable of complex communication thus they can form relationships beyond appearances, hormones and simple communication.

However the same idea swings both ways

ssssh! your logic is killing my argument! or could it be that the inferior superficially adapted in other ways to overcome some of their inherent defects and therefore continue to pass along their genes?

and since our species has adapted in such a way as the woman is much more driven to superficial attractiveness, men are allowed to shape their bodies in whatever way we see fit, and still pass along our genes. Ain't it great to be a guy!

**Lord Bluntmasta** · 11-17-2008, 01:39 AM

Originally Posted by Bookworm

and since our species has adapted in such a way as the woman is much more driven to superficial attractiveness, men are allowed to shape their bodies in whatever way we see fit, and still pass along our genes. Ain't it great to be a guy!

Kind of what I meant by how it goes both ways. I don't see a lot of bald fat guys with young dimepieces, you know?

**Bookworm** · 11-17-2008, 01:40 AM

Originally Posted by Lord Bluntmasta

Kind of what I meant by how it goes both ways. I don't see a lot of bald fat guys with young dimepieces, you know?

tis true. the young dimepieces all hang at my pad.

**Gryphonn** · 11-17-2008, 06:20 AM

Originally Posted by Bookworm

ssssh! your logic is killing my argument! or could it be that the inferior superficially adapted in other ways to overcome some of their inherent defects and therefore continue to pass along their genes?

and since our species has adapted in such a way as the woman is much more driven to superficial attractiveness, men are allowed to shape their bodies in whatever way we see fit, and still pass along our genes. Ain't it great to be a guy!

I would suggest that it isn't so much a Darwinian based evolution/adaption, but a commercial one. The idea that women 'must' self-objectify and make themselves attractive probably started when the first street trader started selling lipstick to prostitutes in Persia.
We males are under similar pressure to project an image of what is deemed 'manly'.

But then, as I think some more, yes, our basic instinct is to initially look sexually attractive to a potential mate. There is a theory among some scientists that when humans began to walk upright, female breasts evolved to replace the aesthetic of the buttocks. The basic instinct to attract a mate has been exploited by commercial interests in an attempt to make us conform to an image (male or female) that is maintained by *buying* things.

Fortunately for a lot of us humans, we've psychologically evolved and don't rely solely on what the packaging looks like, and more importantly, don't get influenced by (to use the term very broadly) 'fashion advertising'.

**buffalosoulja** · 11-17-2008, 07:20 AM

I agree Gryphon, I am attracted to women who are more natural, i.e no makeup or body work. I also believe personality is more important than looks. but it may be their looks that gets my attention.