Love your tits
October 19th 2006 09:00
I once had a girl, or she once had me, and it was a running joke that I'd say to her, "I admire your intelligence", and she'd reply, "Damn! I thought you wanted me for my body."
All in jest, but I'm fairly screwed up, and it always nagged at me anyway that the general question of on what basis you should like someone was left hanging. More specifically, why is there this idea that it’s better to like people for brains than breasts?
It's an open question whether brains give the most pleasure.
There’s a lot of pragmatic reasons -- brains are more useful generally, and generally more lasting. And I think most people let factors other than just "love" influence their choice of mate: a lifelong partnership involves petty things like keeping a house, managing money...
But I suspect the answer, the reason IQ beats nipples, might lie mainly in ideas about self. (So it might be quite culturally specific.) The wise person (or the pure person, or the noble person) ignores petty distractions and illusions and looks to the core of things, to what’s essential about people. Alternatively, if you’re on the receiving end, you want to be adored for what’s "you", not for something that's fake or for something that can be got anywhere else.
And our culture feels mind, intelligence to be central to self. I sit here, and it seems to me I can dress up any way I like, that I can behave how I like, and that I'll be the same person if my arm is cut off. -- But I can't choose to change the way I think. Says our culture (and the truth of the matter is irrelevant): you’re a different person if you think differently, but you’re the same person if you’re in a different body.
Note 1: Valuing brains above beauty also implies other ideas; you’ve got an object "brains", and an object "beauty", and you’ve got a framework of beliefs in which it is possible to say "better" and for me to use adjectives like "noble", "pure", "wise".
Note 2: Theology and Romance, capital R, have always been intertwined. Soulmates requires souls. Love is meant to be a spiritual thing. And it may be that intelligence is imagined to be an aspect of spirit.
All in jest, but I'm fairly screwed up, and it always nagged at me anyway that the general question of on what basis you should like someone was left hanging. More specifically, why is there this idea that it’s better to like people for brains than breasts?
It's an open question whether brains give the most pleasure.
There’s a lot of pragmatic reasons -- brains are more useful generally, and generally more lasting. And I think most people let factors other than just "love" influence their choice of mate: a lifelong partnership involves petty things like keeping a house, managing money...
But I suspect the answer, the reason IQ beats nipples, might lie mainly in ideas about self. (So it might be quite culturally specific.) The wise person (or the pure person, or the noble person) ignores petty distractions and illusions and looks to the core of things, to what’s essential about people. Alternatively, if you’re on the receiving end, you want to be adored for what’s "you", not for something that's fake or for something that can be got anywhere else.
And our culture feels mind, intelligence to be central to self. I sit here, and it seems to me I can dress up any way I like, that I can behave how I like, and that I'll be the same person if my arm is cut off. -- But I can't choose to change the way I think. Says our culture (and the truth of the matter is irrelevant): you’re a different person if you think differently, but you’re the same person if you’re in a different body.
Note 1: Valuing brains above beauty also implies other ideas; you’ve got an object "brains", and an object "beauty", and you’ve got a framework of beliefs in which it is possible to say "better" and for me to use adjectives like "noble", "pure", "wise".
Note 2: Theology and Romance, capital R, have always been intertwined. Soulmates requires souls. Love is meant to be a spiritual thing. And it may be that intelligence is imagined to be an aspect of spirit.
| 80 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by rjcortez
We aren't all attracted to the same things to the same degree. I really don't see it as an either or proposition as much as it is the total package. What may initially attracts our interest may not be what maintains our interests, particularly as we get older.
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Comment by mactim
I like boobs.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
One comment to say in reply is that there is a difference between is and ought. I mean, the fact is, people do look for the total package, and do value both brains and boobs. But should they?
(Similarly, just because people are racist, doesn't mean they should be.)
Could it be argued that there is something wrong (from a practical point of view, or a moral point of view) with valuing boobs, or, conversely, with using your boobs to reinforce other people's valuing of boobs?