3 ms·

Perhaps I misinterpreted your earlier comment? I was responding to the idea that the stuff you see on Cosmo/society-at-large is just natural expressions of har

by crux_ 16y ago

Perhaps I misinterpreted your earlier comment? I was responding to the idea that the stuff you see on Cosmo/society-at-large is just natural expressions of hard-wired biology -- what I see as a classic sexist cop-out.

Tichy 16y ago
I was about to write an answer, but I suddenly find I have troubles even understanding what it is you want. Do you want to change the laws of attraction? Should men (and women) be blamed for wanting attractive mates? You think attraction has nothing to do with biology at all? How guilty should I feel for being a man, knowing that my mere existence apparently forces some women to buy Cosmopolitan (the horror!!!)?
- crux_ 16y ago
  You think the "laws" of attraction are somehow writ in stone, unchanging, dictated by biology only and unrelated to culture? Here's a quick counterexample of the western standard of skinny=attractive: http://www.news24.com/World/News/Cow-steroids-fatten-sex-workers-20100708 http://www.news24.com/World/News/Cow-steroids-fatten-sex-wor... The problem isn't what we do/don't find attractive: it is the double standard of (de) valuing women solely based upon their (un) attractiveness, while men are judged upon a much wider range of criteria or not judged at all.
  - Tichy 16y ago
    The only real thing I have read about attraction so far is that it is probably coined by early experiences (like siblings, parents,...). Also, despite a continued effort by the fashion industry, I never had the impression that anorexia is attractive (hint, think Playboy, not Cosmopolitan). Your link doesn't tell me all that much without photos. In any case, it is obvious that there are all sorts of people (ie men who like fat women, men who like thin women, men who like old women, and so on). I honestly don't know how to argue with you since I am not sure I agree with your assumption that women are valued solely based upon their attractiveness. As for biology, there is a difference between men and women - the latter can bear children. Hence the "pairing" market is asymmetric.

by crux_ 16y ago

Tichy 16y ago

I was about to write an answer, but I suddenly find I have troubles even understanding what it is you want. Do you want to change the laws of attraction? Should men (and women) be blamed for wanting attractive mates? You think attraction has nothing to do with biology at all? How guilty should I feel for being a man, knowing that my mere existence apparently forces some women to buy Cosmopolitan (the horror!!!)?

crux_ 16y ago
You think the "laws" of attraction are somehow writ in stone, unchanging, dictated by biology only and unrelated to culture? Here's a quick counterexample of the western standard of skinny=attractive: http://www.news24.com/World/News/Cow-steroids-fatten-sex-workers-20100708 http://www.news24.com/World/News/Cow-steroids-fatten-sex-wor... The problem isn't what we do/don't find attractive: it is the double standard of (de) valuing women solely based upon their (un) attractiveness, while men are judged upon a much wider range of criteria or not judged at all.
- Tichy 16y ago
  The only real thing I have read about attraction so far is that it is probably coined by early experiences (like siblings, parents,...). Also, despite a continued effort by the fashion industry, I never had the impression that anorexia is attractive (hint, think Playboy, not Cosmopolitan). Your link doesn't tell me all that much without photos. In any case, it is obvious that there are all sorts of people (ie men who like fat women, men who like thin women, men who like old women, and so on). I honestly don't know how to argue with you since I am not sure I agree with your assumption that women are valued solely based upon their attractiveness. As for biology, there is a difference between men and women - the latter can bear children. Hence the "pairing" market is asymmetric.