« I Can Has a Tiara? | Main | Jennifer's New CZ 452 Scout Rifle »
August 26, 2007
What brains tell the world about a woman's cleavage
Some battered housewife out on the left coast has penned a scathing diatribe titled "What cleavage tells the world about a woman's brain". In it, she castigates a woman for exposing too much cleavage in the office. Her position is that, by presenting herself as a sex object, the woman in question must not be very intelligent.
This presumption is not without merit. However, what I pointed out to her in a short reply titled "What brains tell the world about a woman's cleavage", was that the converse is also true, Namely that, if she's smart enough to not have to show cleavage in the office, then the odds are, she's not physically attractive. Susan Hettinger didn't take kindly to this, and found time to send the following reply:
Thanks for taking time to write me this thoughtful response, Rob. You have obviously given this subject a lot of thought, and your opinion interests me. One of the best things about living in a small town and having the privilege of writing occasionally for the local newspaper is hearing from readers who disagree with me, especially those who have the courage and character to sign their names to their messages. I really appreciate that.
Beset wishes to you,
Susan
Like, somehow, she's surprised that I'm willing to sign my name to ideas that, although true, aren't politically correct, and are thereby seldom voiced on the Left Coast.
When breeding for specific traits, each trait is enhanced at the expense of other traits. For instance, when breeding Tennessee Walking Horses, they're breeding specifically for a certain gait. As a result, they get the gait that they want, but the color of the Tennessee Walking Horse varies greatly.
Why is this? Because color isn't something they're breeding for. They want a gaited horse, and they get a gaited horse. Color goes out the window.
Logically, this is true in all selective breeding. It's the reason that more attractive women are presumed to be less intelligent. Why do people assume this? Because the odds are, it's true. A beautiful woman doesn't have to be intelligent to attract a mate. Men are attracted her because of her looks. If she's intelligent as well, then great. But it isn't required. She can survive by looks alone.
Conversely, if a woman is not physically attractive, then she must have some traits that make up for this short-coming. She needs to be intelligent, rich, artistic, etc. There are many traits that can cause her genes to carry on in the gene pool besides physical beauty. And intelligence is one of them.
So, over time, guess what? The more beautiful a person is, the less likely it is that they're also brilliant. This is the same result observed by breeding for any desirable trait in any animal. It's true in horses and dogs and frogs. And, it's as true of men as it is of women.
It's the reason that Lauren Caitlin Upton can't make a complete sentence and Susan Hettinger is a perpetual wall flower.
Below are two photos. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to guess which one is the woman that can't make a complete sentence, and which one thinks women shouldn't expose cleavage in the office.
Posted by Rob Kiser on August 26, 2007 at 10:02 AM
Comments
If your theory is true, wouldn't it be sexist to assume it only appled to women? How do you account for movie star good looking men (yourself) being able to put all those sentences together if simply having good looks had caused all the grey matter to shrink over the ages.
Posted by: sl on August 28, 2007 at 10:18 PM
Obviously you didn't read my post very closely: "The more beautiful a person is, the less likely it is that they're also brilliant. This is the same result observed by breeding for any desirable trait in any animal. It's true in horses and dogs and frogs. And, it's as true of men as it is of women."
Posted by: Rob Kiser on August 29, 2007 at 8:21 AM
[Strangelove's plan for post-nuclear war survival involves living underground with a 10:1 female-to-male ratio]
General "Buck" Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?
Dr. Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.
Ambassador de Sadesky: I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor.
Posted by: Dr. Strangelove on August 30, 2007 at 1:25 PM