From early on in our lives, we are taught how to act and look like because we are women.

Lionesses teach their daughters to hunt. Is that the performance of predation?

Why do people think that social norms precede reality rather than serve it? A woman should want her babies to be sired by a desirable man. Wouldn't you expect a woman's mother to teach her how to attract one? Just acting like you want to catch a good man says that your genetic drives - to enhance the chances of your children - are strong. And that is attractive to men who want their babies to have the best survival chances, too.

"Presentation" norms apply to both sexes, and they serve the purpose of predicting (statistically, not infallibly, so spare us the anecdotes) who will be our best co-procreators. There is simply no way a society can evolve without them, which is why every society has them. Yet there is always a group of intellectuals who, despite their brains, believe erroneously that standards of beauty and attractiveness are arbitrary. The existence of such standards is not arbitrary, nor is their content. Their existence and content are the product of ineluctable competition for the best genes.