3 ms·

I think the OPs implication is "why do we care about if Cleopatra was beautiful, do we likewise care if a male emperor was attractive?"

dfxm12 8y ago
If OP is genuinely wondering that, I guess OP didn't read the article. I'd also point OP towards all the (no pun intended) snake oil beauty products and techniques that bear Cleopatra's name, e.g.: http://www.stylecraze.com/articles/cleopatra-beauty-secrets/ http://www.stylecraze.com/articles/cleopatra-beauty-secrets/
coldtea 8y ago
Because we never signed any contract that said that in society both sexes will be interested in the same things, including being interested in the same attributes of the other sex.
- ralusek 8y ago
  I'm not implying that we did, I was just clarifying after seeing two responses to the OP that seemingly missed the point they were trying to make.
- Koshkin 8y ago
  so, sexism is still a thing
  - coldtea 8y ago
    So, "sexism" is meaningless as a catch-all accusation. It's a throught stopper. Viewing others as sexual objects, for example, is fine when looking for a sexual encounter (whether you're a man or a woman or non-binary or whatever). Not every relation has to be "meaningful" or a long-term commitment. This is something young people revolted to earn in the 50s and 60s, and apparently our neo-puritan 80s and onwards breathen forgot. On the other hand, viewing others as sexual objects, is not fine on e.g. a job interview -- but that's another case altogether. People of different sexes having different preferences is also a statistical reality (statistical meaning it's not some property that holds for absolutely every member of a respective set). We can say they shouldn't, but we can't finger point and accuse a girl because she reads Cosmopolitan, or to a boy because he reads some bodybuilding website. Their tastes might be cliche, but they are what they are. And nobody can objectively measure what's a legitimate preference and what's not, except by having some non-verified prior that men and women should absolutely have the same tastes in aggregate, and if they're not, that's some social distortion right there.

dfxm12 8y ago

If OP is genuinely wondering that, I guess OP didn't read the article. I'd also point OP towards all the (no pun intended) snake oil beauty products and techniques that bear Cleopatra's name, e.g.: http://www.stylecraze.com/articles/cleopatra-beauty-secrets/ http://www.stylecraze.com/articles/cleopatra-beauty-secrets/

coldtea 8y ago

Because we never signed any contract that said that in society both sexes will be interested in the same things, including being interested in the same attributes of the other sex.

ralusek 8y ago
I'm not implying that we did, I was just clarifying after seeing two responses to the OP that seemingly missed the point they were trying to make.
Koshkin 8y ago
so, sexism is still a thing
- coldtea 8y ago
  So, "sexism" is meaningless as a catch-all accusation. It's a throught stopper. Viewing others as sexual objects, for example, is fine when looking for a sexual encounter (whether you're a man or a woman or non-binary or whatever). Not every relation has to be "meaningful" or a long-term commitment. This is something young people revolted to earn in the 50s and 60s, and apparently our neo-puritan 80s and onwards breathen forgot. On the other hand, viewing others as sexual objects, is not fine on e.g. a job interview -- but that's another case altogether. People of different sexes having different preferences is also a statistical reality (statistical meaning it's not some property that holds for absolutely every member of a respective set). We can say they shouldn't, but we can't finger point and accuse a girl because she reads Cosmopolitan, or to a boy because he reads some bodybuilding website. Their tastes might be cliche, but they are what they are. And nobody can objectively measure what's a legitimate preference and what's not, except by having some non-verified prior that men and women should absolutely have the same tastes in aggregate, and if they're not, that's some social distortion right there.