Women are attracted to relativity

[Basman]

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@Basman you can sit down for a brainstorming session, and critically think through all the systems that might influence how attraction isn't a binary split between subjective/objective. It's more of a spectrum. You also have to define what you mean particularly with the term "attraction"

"Fairly objective and obvious" - that word fairly is loaded with... A lot of nuance. It's potentially doing a lot of work there.

Even babies can recognize when someone is attractive.  It's largely genetic. Humans don't find other species sexually attractive, like horses or lions, even if they have good genes for that reason (outside of weird fetishes).  

[Natasha Tori Maru]

26 minutes ago, Basman said:

Even babies can recognize when someone is attractive.  It's largely genetic. Humans don't find other species sexually attractive, like horses or lions, even if they have good genes for that reason (outside of weird fetishes).  

This is a silly comparison that doesn't argue for true objective attraction as a binary. Babies don't stare at women waists for their waist to hip ratio. Most of the time they are fixated on eye colour and shape. Facial expressions of laughter and smiling catch them more than facial aesthetics (but there are trends in looks that are more universally attractive). This only points toward some parameters that can be indicative of objective attractiveness. Not that hotness is totally objective. 

There's a huge leap you make from evidence of shared preferences to proof of objective attractiveness. 

Picking some extreme example isn't arguing your case.

Edited 58 minutes ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Jirh]

43 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@Jirh I think this is a really solid, fair dissection of the flaws and assumptions behind the fallacy of claiming there is some subjective/objective binary looks or "hotness" can fit neatly in. 

Arguing for the '"absolute hotness" - sounds bizarre.

There's no clean way about it. How the fuck am I meant to fully understand just how much culture and images have affected my own barometer? How can that even be quantified? You could try to run the claim that we 'biologically react outside of cerebral preferences obtained from the social domain' but even in biological response alone, there is a large variation in response. 

Lets see some "absolute hot" claims

Yeah, let's see.

Though, to clarify, I think there are two points being discussed simultaneously:

1. Objective attractiveness metrics across all cultures and people (with or without exceptions).
2. Objective attractiveness metrics within cultures.

The first discussion is just absurd. I won't even engage in it because it's just too silly to consider.

I think the second discussion has some merit, but it's still largely flawed and clouded by layers of misunderstandings and ego.

And like you highlighted, I think the media and culture (in addition to many other factors) shape and influence our unconscious minds in ways that we cannot fully understand.

So even if we grant some culture some objective metrics, they're still the result of mass brainwashing, not a genuine expression of truth. Which keeps the discussion at stalemate.