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 8 hours 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.

[mmKay]

 

 

[JJfromSwitzerland]

On 21.6.2026 at 11:41 AM, Leo Gura said:

Fame is the greatest game.

If you got fame you can always get laid.

So why are most women not into Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos or Donald Trump? The women I know find these guys disgusting. Yes these guys do have wives and all of that but I guarantee the relationship these guys have with women are shallow, they will never experience deep connections with another human being. It's all performative. Also you guys always talk about attracting women and never about how to maintain a longterm relationship which is a complete different thing... What if you get cancer, what if you become bankrupt, will then all women leave based on these theories? In reality, most women won't....

Edited 3 hours ago by JJfromSwitzerland

[Basman]

5 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

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.

It clearly does.

No one saying it's binary.

[AION]

I don’t belong to the top 5 in the room most of the time but I do get advances from women but they are usually from women I don’t want to be with. Sometimes I notice hot women being attracted by me but they are too prideful and too feminine to make a move. As a guy just looking good is not enough. Even if you belong to the top 5 as a guy we still have to read the room and make almost psychopathic moves. Women on the other hand just get sex thrown at them for existing. Guys who think too much about sex and how to get aka they are neurotic about it. Male neuroticism (overthinking, second guessing, being insecure, not knowing what to say or to do) is n1 killer of female boners. 

Edited 2 hours ago by AION