Two Women: Maybe They’ll Kiss…
Universally, men want to see two women hook up. I’d guess that such a large percentage of heterosexual men want this that it has to be in our genes somewhere. The “Girl-on-Girl” gene, or GOG.
My question is, why? What is the evolutionary function of man’s desire to see two women make out? How does that aid in our survival at a primal level?
In fact, I could see it hurting our chances of survival. Imagine two cavemen hunters stalking a sabertooth tiger upwind. They creep silently through the brush, eyes trained on their prey. Just before they’re within range, one grabs the other by the shoulder. He points to a faraway waterhole.
“Ock, they’re bathing each other!”
“Grog, shh. Maybe they’ll kiss.”
I’d imagine this scenario ending with both hunters being eaten by the tiger.
And yet mankind survived. Somehow those cavemen actually benefited from wanting their cavewomen to hook up. I was talking with my friend Arianna about this tonight, and she helped me come up with the following theories:
- One girl is good, therefore two must be doubly good. Simple caveman math.
- Men like to imagine themselves in the situation, but don’t really want to see another dude or his dudely parts (so, therefore, they can put themselves in the place of one of the girls and it’s a lot easier to handle).
- Men are lazy. Sure, we could start kissing one of the women, but then we’d have all this work to do. Why do work if another woman will do it for you? Another guy could do it too, but see theory number 2.
What do you think? What is the evolutionary purpose of man’s desire to see girl-on-girl?
Not sure if has anything to do with evolution, but as humans we like to see multiples of beautiful things together. For example, gardens full of flowers, museums of fine artwork, fireworks etc. The same thing applies to ladies. Why have one sexy lady when you can have two together.
haha fun post!
i agree with gabby on this one… not really evolutionary, girly kisses are sexy.
Okay, I’ll buy that theory. Us men do sit around staring at a lot of sunsets and fine art. we’re a sophisticated breed.
Women are as much each other’s best friends as they are worst enemies. From Van Morrison’s Wild Nights, “All thr girls walk by, dressed up for each other.” Women are CONSTANTLY checking out other women as competition, and thus they raise the bar for each other. This is because (evolutionarily) guys are supposed to make the first move. They don’t have to necessarily be as hot, because they can prove themselves to the female in other ways (lift heavy things or win competitions in front of her [physically superior], spend money for her/on her [good provider], pretty smile [good genes], whatever). So the more attractive the female, the larger the pool of mates from which she can choose. In the animal kingdom as well as at the bar/club scene, 90% of the time teh females get the final say in whether a pair will get together (mainly because men evolutionarily are not as picky, and will often hit on several girls in one night [Except for Jamey. That dude KNOWS what he wants]).
Here’s the kicker. While some women get defensive about other attractive women limiting their mate-pool (and usually compensate by either getting catty or sluting it up), others are attracted by how good she looks, in an “I hope I look that good” kind of way, wanting to be wanted by someone who knows what being HOT is all about.
Now, why do guys like it? Because (following the raising the bar/High standards rule outlined above) “If that girl is hot enough for that other girl, she’s probably hot enough for me.” Also, we don’t always like PDA, but if she’s down to make out in front of people, maybe she/they’ll make out with me (similar to your point 2).
Right? Right?
Hey nice article
It could have something to do with the inherent desire of males to sow their wild oats. With two (attractive) women getting intimate with each other, an on-looking (heterosexual) male would likely want to join in on the fun, and it likely stems from males’ genetic proclivity to procreate.
Jambo11–Perhaps. I’m trying to think if that works in cavemen terms. I would think that if Caveman A saw his wife kissing another caveman woman, he would get territorial, not turned on. But I’ve been wrong about cavemen before.
I wouldn’t think that a caveman would be territorial toward a cavewoman; it doesn’t seem adherent to either of the two most basic instincts: survival and procreation.
I don’t know…even animals can be pretty territorial, especially dominant males. But I can see your theory working too!
No, not “EVEN animals.”
ESPECIALLY animals.
Wild animals are *definitely* territorial, but only toward members of the same sex, unless it’s one parent or another protecting their young.
Ah, good point.
lol I think it’s more primal myself. I agree with Jambo.