Past lack of learning would inhibit women to be intellects, not harm

For some reason the trait of attractiveness being preferred seems to be hard-wired and paramount to our selection of mates. I've known many women who have chosen less than reputable guys (ie. the bad boy image) based on infatuation with looks. They usually are left alone with their children in the end as well, but their children are usually gorgeous. I've often thought on this and wondered why this is hard wired, not just into men, but into women as well.

[edit on 5-10-2008 by mystiq]

[edit on 5-10-2008 by mystiq]

reply to post by mystiq

for sure. i am guilty of this myself. Always going for the girl that i know deep down will not be there in a year or two, but i try to ignore those feelings and i seek the girl out anyway. these are also the girls that i fall hardest for. it is strange.

reply to post by Enigma Publius


lol, i was paying attention enigma, im just trying to figure out a good responce, as i am on the edge of talking about a good reason to why.

hopefully someone has already done that for me

reply to post by Enigma Publius


The law of attraction is never rational. We, as humans, are more attracted to "pretty" things than we are to "not pretty" things. They are more appealing.....on the surface.

Problem is that we rarely look beneath the surface and just follow our first impressions. I am guilty of that; I think we all are. But, if we take the time to look beneath the exterior, we can find that what is underneath is either as ugly as the outside is pretty or that the inside is utterly beautiful beneath a less than attractive exterior.

Hell, my boyfriend has a gorgeous face.....but his arms are covered in ink and his hair is (right now) navy blue, purple, green, with one streak of blond. If I had gone with first impressions, I would have run screaming in the other direction. But, I didn't and I got one of the smartest, most beautiful men in the world.

Originally posted by Phage
One major problem with your hypothesis; natural selection works to the advantage of a species, not a gender. Women do not physically compete with men for survival (at a species level anyway). Inter-gender competition is not a survival enhancing adaptation.

Women evolved to be physically attractive to men in order to increase their chances of breeding with the dominant, and therefore presumably more survivable males. Just as males evolved to be stronger in order to be able to become dominant and thereby increase their ability to mate with the more attractive and physically able women. Men compete with men for women, and women compete with women for men. Physical attractiveness and strength, as well as intellect, is advantageous in this competition as well as survival. Weaker, less attractive, less intelligent individuals would be less likely to successfully mate.

There really is no quantitative difference in the inherent intelligence levels of men and women. Cultural influences have caused differences in the intellectual development of men and women but these are acquired characteristic which have no influence on genetic inheritance and thus no influence on evolution.
[edit on 4-10-2008 by Phage]

nicely said. im sticking with that one. lol

reply to post by Ghost147

yes, phage pretty well zipped it up didn't he? i admit it kinda deflated me and my confidence in the theory. Well, also i need to do something u won't see much on ATS, appologize. i thought i was on ignor so i started this other thread, but now that i see i wasn't i feel bad from detracting from your OP. although i did dedicate it at the beginning, and link the thread it was based on at least. well i'm glad u don't hold it against me, because i like your ability to think outside the box and i want you on a friendly basis for future thread to get your input, know what i mean?

lol, i dont take offence to it. infact, I think of it more of a tribute in a sence. thanks for making this topic.

But it was too cave manish for me, and I preferred the Hopi version. It was a lot more respectful to women, and these guys have a really long history themselves. Not everyone thought like our version of the cavemen.

[edit on 5-10-2008 by mystiq]

reply to post by mystiq

lol...the hopi version.
cool on you.