Women are attracted to relativity

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

But, since women need men for survival, they want a man who is better at survival, and survival for humans usually involves higher social standing.

Men don't depend on women for survival aa much (excluding reproduction).

How are you quantifying "needed for survival" here? 

I think it's a false comparison. You can't really decouple men and women in terms of needs like this.

I don't think survival can be measured independently like that for each sex. 

I don't think this holds for all contexts.

[Leo Gura]

20 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

How are you quantifying "needed for survival" here? 

I think it's a false comparison. You can't really decouple men and women in terms of needs like this.

I don't think survival can be measured independently like that for each sex. 

I don't think this holds for all contexts.

Women need men to be providers. Men don't need that from women. I am not saying anything new here. Just pointing out the obvious.

That is counter-balanced by men needing women to being good mothers.

Edited 2 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Xonas Pitfall]

This argument is pretty easily debunked by the simple fact that women's attractiveness has been viewed very differently throughout history. So no, male attraction to women isn't a fixed, objective thing either. It's heavily relative and shaped by culture and time. The same applies to women and who they perceive as an attractive man. The idea that you would always pick out your “type” in any environment, any culture, or any time period because it is purely objective and independent is not true.

Quote

• Prehistoric fertility figurines, such as the Venus of Willendorf, depict women with very large breasts, hips, and stomachs. Today's standards would consider her obese and unattractive.
• Cleopatra is also a good example. Most historians don't think she was exceptionally beautiful by modern standards. In fact, surviving depictions of her don't match today's beauty ideals in the slightest. What made her captivating was her charisma, confidence, political power, voice, wit, and ability to command a room. Yet she was one of the most famous seductresses and "beauties" of her time.
• During the Italian Renaissance and Baroque period, wealthy, full-figured women were considered beautiful because they signified health, fertility, and wealth. Today, many of those same body types would be labeled overweight or obese.
• In Europe for centuries, especially during the Elizabethan era, women deliberately used white lead makeup to make their skin as pale as possible. A tan suggested you worked outdoors and were poor. However, also, for decades after, a deep tan was considered incredibly attractive, and people sunbathed to achieve it. Today, there's a growing emphasis on skincare, sunscreen, and preventing sun damage, making lighter, natural skin more desirable for many people.
• In the 1920s, the fashionable ideal shifted toward the slim, almost boyish "flapper" silhouette. A lot of people now would call it too flat, masculine, and unappealing.
• In the 1950s, the ideal became the curvy hourglass figure associated with Marilyn Monroe.
• In the 1990s, fashion promoted the extremely thin anorexic-like "heroin chic" aesthetic.
• Kim Kardashian-like and cosmetic procedures like the Brazilian Butt Lift (BBL).

Many other cultures also have their own ideas of what is attractive, and people within those cultures notice and value those traits. Attraction, for both men and women, is influenced by survival and social conformity, so people tend to find the cues valued in their own culture attractive, no matter how strange they might seem to outsiders. For example:

Quote

• High foreheads: In medieval and Renaissance Europe, women sometimes plucked or shaved their hairlines to make their foreheads appear larger because a high forehead was fashionable.
• Blackened teeth: In Japan, the practice of ohaguro involved married women and some aristocrats blackening their teeth because black teeth were considered elegant and beautiful.
• Foot binding: For nearly a thousand years in China, tiny bound feet were considered one of the highest standards of feminine beauty and status, despite the severe physical consequences.
• Long necks: Among the Kayan people, brass neck rings have traditionally been used to create the appearance of an elongated neck, which is considered beautiful within that culture.
• Lip plates: Among groups such as the Mursi people, large lip plates have traditionally been viewed as attractive and culturally significant.

You have to consider that society and media heavily shape your natural instincts and influence what you respond to, and that social conformity is also deeply embedded in how you choose a partner.

A good open-mindedness exercise is to imagine genuinely living in these different cultures and naturally preferring to have sex with the type of women considered attractive there, genuinely enjoying it, and then feeling just as devastated if you were unable to have that experience as you would in your own culture with your “classic” beauty standards.

Even if you argue that there are still some overlaps and consistent traits in what people find attractive, the same applies to male attractiveness as well. It still shows that both are relative.

Edited 2 hours ago by Xonas Pitfall

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Women need men to be providers. Men don't need that from women. I am not saying anything new here. Just pointing out the obvious.

That is counter-balanced by men needing women to being good mothers.

You can say that it is obvious - but your initial statement wasn't clear. I would say it also relies on women being able to bear children as well as raise them. I don't care if what you say is new or not.

Cheers for clarifying 🙏🏻

So, they rely on each other for survival. And each have their own part to play as providers. One cannot be "more of a provider" than the other without making effort quantifying this for each sex.

Edited 1 hour ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Xonas Pitfall]

On 17/06/2026 at 0:09 PM, StaraX said:

In other words, her attractiveness is not DEPENDENT on the existence of less attractive, older, overweight, or less desirable women. A woman can be considered attractive on her own merits, whereas a man's attractiveness appears to depend much more on how he ranks compared to other men.

If you only had one woman, she would automatically be seen as the most attractive because there is no comparison. If a more attractive woman appears, she becomes the new reference point, and the standard of beauty shifts again. The same logic applies to strength or masculinity in men: a man seems strong until a stronger one appears, which changes how the others are perceived. I don't quite understand the difference you are trying to point out.

[ThePhil939]

56 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Women need men to be providers. Men don't need that from women. I am not saying anything new here. Just pointing out the obvious.

That is counter-balanced by men needing women to being good mothers.

This argument flies out of the window when looking at the current situation where women overtake men in survival, at least when looking at academic accomplishments, while simultaneously don't wanting kids anymore. This culminates in the instagram feminists proclaiming they would not need men anymore. Is the solution to become even better at survival as a men or do we need another form of relating to each other, that is maybe more based on an energetic polarity and not so much on status.