4 ms·

> The answer is "evolved intuition", like it or not. Maybe. A lot of what we assume are innate sexual preferences are actually determined socially. No one wa

> The answer is "evolved intuition", like it or not. Maybe. A lot of what we assume are innate sexual preferences are actually determined socially. No one was talking about "body count" (at least not publicly) ten years ago. These days, a full-figure on a woman is considered attractive, but in the 1990s, being skinny was in vogue. Insofar as an attractive partner is a status symbol, the definition of "attractive" changes with fashion.

vovavili 2mo ago
>These days, a full-figure on a woman is considered attractive, but in the 1990s, being skinny was in vogue. This is usually based on a selective and wishful interpretation of historical data. The best argument I've found is here - https://www.jsanilac.com/dispelling-beauty-lies/ https://www.jsanilac.com/dispelling-beauty-lies/
- armenarmen 2mo ago
  Evil Vizier’s work on the topic is fascinating
- hackyhacky 2mo ago
  I was alive in the 1990s. "Heroic chic" was definitely a thing. I'm also alive now. It's not hard to find big butts being idolized. Your linked article is not very scientific. For example, it cites porn-store purchasing preference as evidence of actual male taste in partner selection.
  - vovavili 2mo ago
    >Your linked article is not very scientific. That's the whole point. Due to the touchiness of the subject matter, these kinds of topics would be quite difficult to discuss frankly in a politicized institution guarded by a peer review process.
    - hackyhacky 2mo ago
      I didn't mention peer review. The bare minimum for scientific analysis is conclusion drawn from observations based on data points. This article is more like a rant occasionally augmented by pictures of anime boobs. There is no attempt at scientific rigor. A serious presentation could have maintained the rigor even outside the peer-review process (which, despite your assertion, would likely have no objection to the subject matter).
      - vovavili 2mo ago
        I think what you're trying to say is that this article isn't at the highest level of epistemic certainty. That's not surprising for a given subject matter. The author explicitly acknowledges that -https://www.jsanilac.com/dispelling-beauty-lies/#:~:text=Don%27t%20Trust%20Me%0A%0ASome%20claim%20the%20author%20is%20a%20tasteless%20scoundrel%20who%20can%27t%20be%20trusted.%20As%20it%20happens%2C%20the%20author%20doesn%27t%20want%20to%20be%20trusted.%20Instead%2C%20examine%20the%20evidence%20and%20reasoning.%20Don%27t%20take%20anything%20you%20read%20on%20faith. https://www.jsanilac.com/dispelling-beauty-lies/#:~:text=Don...
  - zardo 2mo ago
    I was alive in 1992, "Baby Got Back" hit number one on the charts.
- codedokode 2mo ago
  The article is too long. Judging about beauty standards by using sex dolls as an example is not very smart, first, because they are targeted to a small niche audience with specific tastes, second, they do not look especially attractive in the photos in the article. Also the font is awful and a pain to read.
- BigTTYGothGF 2mo ago
  > This is usually based on a selective and wishful interpretation of historical data My lived experience says they're right. In the 90s one didn't have a "phat ass", one was just a "fatass". > The best argument I've found is here
rhrhfjfjjr44 2mo ago
>No one was talking about "body count" (at least not publicly) ten years ago. Why do you think that is? Our great grandfathers were practically guaranteed to be marrying virgins, while today's young men seem to consider themselves lucky if their girl is still in single figures. Things have changed, people are talking about it.
- quickthrowman 2mo ago
  > Our great grandfathers were practically guaranteed to be marrying virgins Lol yeah, and fetishes were invented in the 1950s. Very few people in history made it to marriage as virgins.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - rhrhfjfjjr44 2mo ago
    [flagged]
    - hackyhacky 2mo ago
      > that would still make them a unicorn in the dating market nowadays. Are you having trouble in the dating market? Perhaps you're frustrated by frequently meeting women who are experienced enough to recognize your inadequacy. The solution is to improve yourself, not to shame women.
      - codedokode 2mo ago
        But aren't you also "count-shaming" parent comment for preferring women with specific number of previous partners? Maybe they are not the only one frustrated. Also, in Muslim countries and regions it is typically expected for a woman to have zero previous partners to get married, or at least having relationship only within a marriage.
        2mo ago
perpetuallunch 2mo ago
Women, the world over, are, on average, shorter than men. Therefore women will, on average, select mates who are taller than them. Cultural relativism has fallen out of fashion, universal truths are back in.
red-iron-pine 2mo ago
body count was definitely a topic in the early 2000s
Lio 2mo ago
> No one was talking about "body count" (at least not publicly) ten years ago. People have been talking about virginity and monogamy for 1000s of years. Men want to know that the children they raise are their own. It might have blipped a bit since the invention of the pill but women cuckolding their partners has been frowned upon world wide for a very long time. Sex before monogamous marriage has historically been a big thing. There's even songs, sagas and religious books that make virtue of it.
- hackyhacky 2mo ago
  > Men want to know that the children they raise are their own. You realize that the number (>0) of prior sexual partners has nothing to do with the parentage of one's children, right? You can marry a virgin and still be a cuckold; or you can marry a prostitute and sire a large family.
  - Lio 2mo ago
    Of course. “Body count” is a poor proxy for fidelity. That doesn’t mean it hasn’t historically been used for that purpose.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
- vintermann 2mo ago
  Of course it's been a big deal, but I got into genealogy. Found my 7th great grandfather in direct paternal line. Found another descendant in direct paternal line from my 7th great (from a different son). Did Y-DNA testing. Turns out, yeah, every one of those men's father was who they thought he was. Our Y DNA was the same, minus the mutations you'd expect over 400 years on separate branches. That humans make a big deal about parentage and infidelity, doesn't mean humans aren't faithful. Apparently we're the most faithful of pair-bonding species by a big margin.

vovavili 2mo ago

>These days, a full-figure on a woman is considered attractive, but in the 1990s, being skinny was in vogue. This is usually based on a selective and wishful interpretation of historical data. The best argument I've found is here - https://www.jsanilac.com/dispelling-beauty-lies/ https://www.jsanilac.com/dispelling-beauty-lies/

armenarmen 2mo ago
Evil Vizier’s work on the topic is fascinating
hackyhacky 2mo ago
I was alive in the 1990s. "Heroic chic" was definitely a thing. I'm also alive now. It's not hard to find big butts being idolized. Your linked article is not very scientific. For example, it cites porn-store purchasing preference as evidence of actual male taste in partner selection.
- vovavili 2mo ago
  >Your linked article is not very scientific. That's the whole point. Due to the touchiness of the subject matter, these kinds of topics would be quite difficult to discuss frankly in a politicized institution guarded by a peer review process.
  - hackyhacky 2mo ago
    I didn't mention peer review. The bare minimum for scientific analysis is conclusion drawn from observations based on data points. This article is more like a rant occasionally augmented by pictures of anime boobs. There is no attempt at scientific rigor. A serious presentation could have maintained the rigor even outside the peer-review process (which, despite your assertion, would likely have no objection to the subject matter).
    - vovavili 2mo ago
      I think what you're trying to say is that this article isn't at the highest level of epistemic certainty. That's not surprising for a given subject matter. The author explicitly acknowledges that -https://www.jsanilac.com/dispelling-beauty-lies/#:~:text=Don%27t%20Trust%20Me%0A%0ASome%20claim%20the%20author%20is%20a%20tasteless%20scoundrel%20who%20can%27t%20be%20trusted.%20As%20it%20happens%2C%20the%20author%20doesn%27t%20want%20to%20be%20trusted.%20Instead%2C%20examine%20the%20evidence%20and%20reasoning.%20Don%27t%20take%20anything%20you%20read%20on%20faith. https://www.jsanilac.com/dispelling-beauty-lies/#:~:text=Don...
- zardo 2mo ago
  I was alive in 1992, "Baby Got Back" hit number one on the charts.
codedokode 2mo ago
The article is too long. Judging about beauty standards by using sex dolls as an example is not very smart, first, because they are targeted to a small niche audience with specific tastes, second, they do not look especially attractive in the photos in the article. Also the font is awful and a pain to read.
BigTTYGothGF 2mo ago
> This is usually based on a selective and wishful interpretation of historical data My lived experience says they're right. In the 90s one didn't have a "phat ass", one was just a "fatass". > The best argument I've found is here

rhrhfjfjjr44 2mo ago

>No one was talking about "body count" (at least not publicly) ten years ago. Why do you think that is? Our great grandfathers were practically guaranteed to be marrying virgins, while today's young men seem to consider themselves lucky if their girl is still in single figures. Things have changed, people are talking about it.

quickthrowman 2mo ago
> Our great grandfathers were practically guaranteed to be marrying virgins Lol yeah, and fetishes were invented in the 1950s. Very few people in history made it to marriage as virgins.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- rhrhfjfjjr44 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - hackyhacky 2mo ago
    > that would still make them a unicorn in the dating market nowadays. Are you having trouble in the dating market? Perhaps you're frustrated by frequently meeting women who are experienced enough to recognize your inadequacy. The solution is to improve yourself, not to shame women.
    - codedokode 2mo ago
      But aren't you also "count-shaming" parent comment for preferring women with specific number of previous partners? Maybe they are not the only one frustrated. Also, in Muslim countries and regions it is typically expected for a woman to have zero previous partners to get married, or at least having relationship only within a marriage.
      - 2mo ago

perpetuallunch 2mo ago

Women, the world over, are, on average, shorter than men. Therefore women will, on average, select mates who are taller than them. Cultural relativism has fallen out of fashion, universal truths are back in.

red-iron-pine 2mo ago

body count was definitely a topic in the early 2000s

Lio 2mo ago

> No one was talking about "body count" (at least not publicly) ten years ago. People have been talking about virginity and monogamy for 1000s of years. Men want to know that the children they raise are their own. It might have blipped a bit since the invention of the pill but women cuckolding their partners has been frowned upon world wide for a very long time. Sex before monogamous marriage has historically been a big thing. There's even songs, sagas and religious books that make virtue of it.

hackyhacky 2mo ago
> Men want to know that the children they raise are their own. You realize that the number (>0) of prior sexual partners has nothing to do with the parentage of one's children, right? You can marry a virgin and still be a cuckold; or you can marry a prostitute and sire a large family.
- Lio 2mo ago
  Of course. “Body count” is a poor proxy for fidelity. That doesn’t mean it hasn’t historically been used for that purpose.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
vintermann 2mo ago
Of course it's been a big deal, but I got into genealogy. Found my 7th great grandfather in direct paternal line. Found another descendant in direct paternal line from my 7th great (from a different son). Did Y-DNA testing. Turns out, yeah, every one of those men's father was who they thought he was. Our Y DNA was the same, minus the mutations you'd expect over 400 years on separate branches. That humans make a big deal about parentage and infidelity, doesn't mean humans aren't faithful. Apparently we're the most faithful of pair-bonding species by a big margin.