Its conventional wisdom that knowing how to play music makes a guy popular with the ladies. In fact, when a guy who has never really shown any inclination to play music starts to learn, the first assumption will be that he is trying to raise his networth somewhat. Might not be a fair assessment, but that just goes to show how much this image has been ingrained into culture.
But why? There has to be a reason that girls find guitarists or pianists or violinists attractive. I think it has something to do with natural selection.
An article in the Economist once observed that humans find mates that are liberal with their resources attractive. In the modern context, its material wealth for men, and the willingness to care for others for women. Apparently, generous men and unusually compassionate women are found to be more attractive by the opposite sex. Women want a man who is willing and capable of taking care of them in the traditional role of breadwinner (thus the eye for material wealth) . Men want a woman who will take care of the family in the role of housekeeper (thus the need for a woman who is charitable with her energy). The bottom line is, the more likely a person is able to spare resources, the more attractive they become.
I think that the ability to play music is a show of an abundance of resource. Music isn't an easy skill to master, and requires a lot of practice and dedication. Looking at it from a survival perspective, music is useless. Music is a luxury, not a necessity. Only a person who has his necessities more than covered for extended periods of time will be able to come up with a decent tune. So that automatically means that they have their bases covered. Which would mean that if you manage to nail him you got all your bases covered too.
This theory has its problems. If it were true, then all forms of art would share the same status as music, but they don't. A painter doesn't get panties thrown at him, a musician does. I concede that they are other factors that have to be taken into consideration. The scale of appeal of the different forms of art, the audiences that they cater to. Painters may not be able to make girls squeal, but they can make ladies swoon (see Titanic). The underlying principles are the same.
All this talk of love might seem like I'm generalizing women into neat little categories. Some might get a bit pissed, because they say I'm stereotyping. Others might wonder why there is a focus on women. Well, to answer all that, first off, I'm a guy. Of course I'm more interested in women. Second, male reactions are boring. The simple equation boobie = erection pretty much sums it up. Women are much more complex, much more fun to form ideas about.
And no, I don't see the entire female population as a bunch of experimental lab rats to be put into a glass case and observed. It is possible to study human attraction, speak very clinically about it and still be put under its influence. Helen Fisher confessed to have had her fair share, and knowing about it and having an academic curiosity never dampened the magic for her. So there..
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Interesting theory.
But isn`t that a little contradictory. Considering the fact that musician and artist (painters and such) are generally poor lot.
Well, it depends on how successful the artist is. Plus, the female subconscious just needs to believe that a guy is rich. He doesn't have to be. Instinctive reactions based on the subconscious can contradict reality.
lol... that`s a little far-fetched, but at the same time, made sense. Perhaps it`s time to experiment.
*self proclaimed pianist, violinist and guitarist for grab. anyone?
Far fetched? Hardly. There are other theories about anthropology that make less sense than this.
Post a Comment