Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share Flag Next Entry
i'd do her
basic concept of Guyness* came-up in conversation with welfy over the holiday and we've returned to it a few times. I've tried explaining it to her and she "gets it" but I don't think that she fully believes it to be a rampant, widespread Guy phenomenon. I don't believe that every dude does this, but I would wager that a good majority do. So, I thought I would prove/disprove it with an informal, totally unscientific polling of my f-list.

It's a concept called "I'd do her"**. It's usually said that way, and often offered with a shrug.

The gist of the concept is that men will consciously categorize any woman into one of two categories based solely on physical attributes that they deem desirable. It is my contention that men do this on at-least a sub-conscious level immediately upon seeing any woman for the first time, but that's a lot harder to prove. It has nothing to do with personality. It has nothing to do with feelings. It has nothing to do with present circumstances. It's a blue-sky, fantasy-world of carnal desire that is hard-wired into the male psyche. It's the difference between specific attraction and general attraction. It means that, if given an ideal set of circumstances as it applies to the individual's inner ethics and morality, that they would "do her". Maybe it'd have to be in wedded bliss, maybe it could only be a hook-up because the thought of her personality is so distasteful. You can argue all you want about where it originates, nature or nurture, but the fact remains that it exists.

This may seem terribly obvious. Of course if everything was sky-blue fantasy: if I didn't think she was annoying, if I wasn't married, if I... you can go on forever. But my point is that Guys have cut through the chaste to the chase and developed a concept and phrase which captures all of that, and nothing more needs to be said. It's understood universally by all other guys.

"I'd do her".

To make it a little easier, here are come basic scenarios:

Scenario 1: Guy One mentions his attraction for HOT CELEBRITY. Guy Two makes a face and says he never thought she was that attractive. Guy One challenges Guy Two with "You wouldn't do her?" It now has nothing to do with specific attraction but general attraction. Chances are that HOT CELEBRITY isn't morbidly obese or severely disfigured, so the honest answer will almost always be yes. A variation on this scenario is that Guy Two doesn't "like" HOT CELEBRITY for whatever reason (undesirable public persona, dislike of her entertainment value, lack-of entertainment value, etc.) but when challenged would have to admit he would indeed do her. This is the way that most guys feel about your musical-pop-tart flavor-of-the-month-diva at the height of their hype. Another variation of this scenario has an era delimiter ("I'd do 60's-era Eartha Kitt").

Scenario 2: Two guys are having lunch at a food court in a mall. To fill the silence between them, they play a casual game of "I'd do her" directed at anonymous ladies passing-by. There are variations of this game, but it's the same basic concept.

Scenario 3: A guy's girlfriend has an attractive mother/sister/daughter. This stands to reason since the guy is attracted to his girlfriend, but not universal. Obviously the ages of mothers and daughters weighs heavily into this. Under the rule of "I'd do her", he'd have to admit to it. Ladies, don't ask your guys this question unless you truly understand this concept and can handle what you'll hear. This is assuming of course that he doesn't lie to you, which he probably will.

o where's the question in this? I'm glad you asked. While I don't think it's universal, I'm sure it's very, very common. So guys, I want you to think of work (or school). It's a place there are likely females you see on a daily basis and have had lots of time to consider.

My question is, do you already have a mental inventory of who you would or would not do? As a side question: is there a hierarchy? In the blue-sky fantasy you could only "do" one, only once, and never any of the others, ever. Do you already know who it would be without thinking?

*This is not to to say that it is a purely Guy concept. I've known many females who do the same thing.
**This is not intended to exclude those of homo/bi sexual persuasion and I presume it is also applicaple with the third-person pronoun of your choosing.

  • 1
I guess I would argue that while the phrase itself is crass, it really has nothing to do with sex per-se, although I will agree that is certainly objectification. I've always been of the opinion that objectification in of itself is not unhealthy, what is unhealthy are actions and attitudes which sometimes develop as a result of them: from clichéd construction-worker catcalling to work-place discrimination.

I think men, more so than women, objectify their desire in addition to the feelings and relationship which may be pinning the intimacy. A loving, married couple may have the most wholesome relationship ever/anywhere but I bet every once in a while he just looks at his wife, maybe catches the sun coming through the space between her knees in a long dress, and thinks "Man, I wanna nail her right now." That comes from nowhere other than pure lust.

Just because something is the prevalent tendency doesn't make it right. And I can so say from experience, at least in my own life, that it's far from healthy, but terribly destructive (and that's even ignoring the obvious).

I don't think that a human's prevailing tendancy is necessarily right OR wrong. We teach children that it's not ok to strangle kittens and to "pet them easy". Just as we teach a child to harness their strength, we instill our children with values to harness their desires and emotions. A human's capacity for desire, or anger, or love is no more wrong than a person's capacity for physical strength. It only becomes destructive when outward (or inward) behavior becomes damaging to yourself or others. One person may have trouble harnessing their anger while another person may have no trouble with it, but maybe they have some issue coping with desire. The point is that everyone has their demons, and I'm well aware of the ones you're currently battling and trying to get behind you, so some drastic measures are probably in order and I salute that path you've chosen.

Thanks. I agree that none of our natural drives are inherently bad. That's why they exist, from whatever argument for the origin for man one might come: either God designed them, or their survival through evolution proved them useful and positive and effective (or in my case, both). But there is a right and a wrong way to use those drives. Whether you define that as beneficial versus destructive, moral versus immoral, healthy versus unhealthy, there you are. And looking at women, desiring women, even objectifying women are none of them inherently unhealthy/destructive/immoral/wrong. But they can lead to destructive ends. That's all I'm saying. And I think it's healthier for anyone, regardless of their moral views, to strive to view women respectfully and as whole people, not objects. You can draw that line wherever you like, but objectifying women (or men, or anyone; people in general), in any sense, no matter how prevalent or accepted it may be, is never something to celebrate.

  • 1