Why are women attractive? And don't say evolution.
Why don't we know why sexual reproduction exists?
>>7650411
Because if we had no attraction we wouldn't really care about reproducing. Attraction brings competitiveness which brings survival of the fittest.
>>7650545
>Why are women attractive?
Scent, associative factors, and tendencies of the brain when processing shapes and conceptualizing. Why does some food taste good and others not? It's of the same basis.
The only odd part is how these mate selection heuristics come into play to begin with. Some of it can be explained, others are a bit harder. Like choosing women that aren't just genetically fit, but have behaviors suggesting they'll be viable partners to work with and raise children properly. That might be spillover from other desires and tendencies.
>>7650545
better question, why are some women NOT attractive.
>>7650545
because most men get a temporary validation of their existence if they manage to satisfy women and women have the lowest entry of requirement of satisfaction, but it escalates quite quickly
>>7650550
>survival of the fittest
"The expression ‘survival of the fittest’ is almost always ascribed to Darwin. Actually, it was coined by Herbert Spencer, an influential contemporary of Darwin’s, who translated the latter’s evolutionary theory into rather catchy phrases, so that it came to be applied to society. Evolution - understood to mean progress- might well be based on chance mutations, but surely that didn’t mean we had to resign ourselves to our fate? We could give chance a hand, couldn’t we? This provided an important added twist to ideas about change: it could be steered, preferably in the right direction. This was the aim of social Darwinism, an ideology that caught on in the late 19th century. Its adherents saw society as a living organism that evolved like any other, and whose individual cells (social classes and races) were sick or healthy, fit or unfit. Here, too, we see an important shift in meaning. Darwin used the term 'fittest’ to mean 'best adapted to an environment’. In the wake of Spencer, it came to mean 'most successful’ - that is to say, 'strongest’. Certain groups or classes are stronger, laying claim to all resources; others are weaker and will gradually die out, in a phenomenon regarded as a 'natural’ process. According to this line of thought, social abuses are not socio-economic phenomena but diseases, 'cancers’, whose carriers are 'parasites’ that must be eradicated.“
— Paul Verhaeghe
>>7650545
>why are women attractive?
check your privilege hetero shitlord.
>>7650560
wow way to kill my vibe
evolution
>>7650574
>huh huh i posted what he said not to me so funny
>Why don't we know why sexual reproduction exists?
We do though. Sexual reproduction greatly improves genetic diversity. Genetic diversity increases overall species fitness as it allows the species to adapt to changing environments or pathogens etc.
The conspicuous lack of a phallus.
Why isn't this discussed more often? It's such a strange effect in my cognitive faculties.
>>7650576
you noticed
>>7650584
you made another post
>>7650585
You did too. Btw, there's no why, we only know its consequences.
>>7650588
We can discuss the image of Woman as it appears in consciousness.
>>7650598
Is there no science for understanding the attraction between members of a social group?
>>7650545
there probably is no good reason
its just a useless side effect of our (and many other species) reliance on sight
>>7650608
Yes there is, but since there's few science subjects that qualify for the explanation and all of them have to do with evolution and you are being such a sperglord, /his/ is the place to ask this.
>>7650614
So we can understand the attraction of particles but we can't understand the emotional attraction of systems of particles?
How strange it is to be human.
>>7650616
>emotional attraction of systems of particles
Enjoy your ban.
>>7650612
>useless
>>7650616
>So we can understand the attraction of particles but we can't understand the emotional attraction of systems of particles?
>How strange it is to be human.
Does sounding deep help get you laid?
Why would it be strange to understand the interactions of two particles before understanding a system made of trillions of particles?
>>7650622
I don't get out so no it doesn't.
>Why would it be strange to understand the interactions of two particles before understanding a system made of trillions of particles?
It's not.
I guess I'm just disappointed at how the pace of science is lagging behind the pace of society.
>>7650621
maybe even worse than useless when you think about it
in humans at least
I mean the fact that humans can be attracted to other humans who are not of prime mating age or in good health can't be doing any good for our species can it?
>>7650625
>disappointed at how the pace of science is lagging behind the pace of society.
Now I'm really lost.
How are the two comparable?
Frankly, I don't see society as "progressing" so much as changing.
Old stereotypes and prejudices give way to new stereotypes and prejudices.
>>7650632
Say the progress of science is logarithmic and the progress of society is sinusoidal. Shouldn't the change in society be tied to science? And can this be mathematically represented?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nsoctw3oobs
What do you call a sheep in sheep's clothing?
>>7650662
Depends on your mood.
>>7650636
I'm still lost about how you find the two comparable.
It's like comparing the viscosity of motor oil to the wavelength of a radio signal.
Never mind the difficulty of quantifying the progress of either, how would you compare the two?
>>7650669
radio signal is based on the laws of electrodynamics
motor oil viscosity is based on the laws on newton's laws
These laws have alot in common you halfwit.
>>7650665
Who are you?
![Serial Experiments Lain - 13.mkv_snapshot_15.41_[2013.05.24_05.09.07].png](https://i.imgur.com/vyAVVgr.jpg "Serial Experiments Lain - 13.mkv_snapshot_15.41_[2013.05.24_05.09.07].png")
>>7650699
I am me.
>>7650688
>These laws have alot in common you halfwit.
OK, so what's the viscosity of CBMR?
Is 10-W30 more than 100 MHz?
>>7650705
bretty gud
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGbxmsDFVnE
>>7650551
Are you 12?
>>7650729
22.
Would you treat them nice if they were ugly?
>>7650820
Yes. I had a female acquaintance in a hs computer science class that I might call "ugly."
>>7650550
>survival of the fittest.
Someone failed biology. That term is popsci, anon. Go back to reddit you filthy casual.
because they wear makeup. w/out it theyll mostly look like dudes.
>>7651212
If you see dudes everytime you see women, then anon I have some good/bad news for you.
>>7650545
evolution
>Why don't we know why sexual reproduction exists?
lol, you really should study evolution a bit more..
>>7650545
Sexual reproduction exists to help promote genetic variation. It's like a backup strategy for when certain phenotypes become detrimental.
It's weird to think about, but even our methods of reproduction "evolved" over time into what they are,
Probably.
>>7651247
most probably.
>>7650581
>The conspicuous lack of a phallus.
Futas are a thing m8.
>>7650545
>Why are women attractive?
The male form (when developed) is more attractive though and far more visually aesthetic.
>>7650616
Henry cavil is so fuckin' qt.
>>7651264
Musclegirls are actually the best.
If you have two neurons, one will have more electrons than the other. If the difference becomes large enough, it causes a cascade that leads to Calcium, Sodium and Potassium being shot from the higher energy neuron to the lower energy neuron. This is called an action potential.
Chains of action potentials form circuits. When photons hit your eye, every neuron that gets hit produces such a chain, that leads to the visual cortex, which produces more chains that lead to places like the cerebellum, which tells your body to initiate the sexual response, and the prefrontal cortex which controls such responses.
Certain circuits are genetic, in the sense that they emerge in every single example of a species. The subtle shapes of a human female, and human faces in particular, have such circuits. Male humans who don't have such circuits don't tend to breed, and so every male, gay or straight, inherits them.
Also, male and female aren't forks in the road, but different degrees on a spectrum - the human body is made male by exposing it to greater quantities of the same hormones, not different hormones. Essentially, men get blasted with estrogen, which binds all the receptors and keeps the female phenotype from forming - women eventually go through menopause and experience the same thing.
So, these same circuits exist in women, and that's probably where lesbians come from. Gays probably come from a lack of these circuits, and transsexuals seem to be defined by mutant neurology, as much if not more than they are by opposite-sex neurology.
>>7651264
>fag detected
git oot
>>7651333
The human body is made male by its chromosomal reaction, not an amount of androgen.
"For a male embryo, at around the sixth week, the SRY gene, on the Y chromosome promotes a protein called the H-Y antigen. The effect of this is to bind to the DNA molecule itself, in a number of specific places, causing it to bend, in turn affecting the action of a number of genes"
of course its evolution. sexual reproduction is a very successful method of mixing up genes and creating hybrid life forms which can more successfully colonize multiple environmental niches. however, to do that, the tendency of creatures to avoid excess intimacy must be overcome. intimacy between other than mother and child is risky, as you are also in competition for resources. so, the barrier to intimacy is reduced when look, smell, etc is found attractive and nonthreatening. males must tone down aggression enough (perhaps only ritual aggression) to allow females to trust them. females must not attack when violated (except ritually). so, human females are just a particularly complex expression of this. women know what we like, create illusions of what we like, and follow changes in what attractive obsessively, without even knowing why. its quite a beautiful dance.
>>7650545
We ( human beings ) perceive/think in patterns. 4chan is the perfect place to identify your personal set of patterns associated with attraction. I dare say the most common set is the one that matches a woman as beautiful.
Just think of 'traps'. The good ones may fool you into thinking that they are beautiful women by displaying shape and behaviour of attractive women.
As for 'why'? It works.
>>7650545
>don't say evolution
... but these hot wimmen evolved from teh primeval slootz becoz teh secksual preference!
Lrn2evolution
>>7652270
>The human body is made male by its chromosomal reaction
Yes, by the Dmrt1 gene, which is on chromosome 9, and the FOXL2 gene on chromosome 3;
>https://web.archive.org/web/20150203043513/http://umnews.ur.umn.edu/news/features/2011/UR_CONTENT_346326.html
>But not all answers are final. Researchers have found that certain genes are needed not only to make, but to keep organisms male or female
>"The presumption had been that the sex determination decision was made in the embryonic gonad, leading to either a testis or an ovary, and the decision was final," says David Zarkower, professor of genetics, cell biology and development and an author of the paper. "That turns out not to be the case in either sex."
>The current study also revealed why loss of the Dmrt1 gene was so devastating to maleness: Dmrt1 works by "turning off" the Foxl2 gene; therefore, in Dmrt1-free animals, the Foxl2 gene has free rein to promote female development. And what is one way Foxl2 does this? Sure enough, the German team found that it turns off Dmrtl
Firstly, lets remember that genes can't be turned off - what's going on here is that either gene results in a metabolic cascade that inhibits the production of a protein or set of proteins produced by it's opposite. But at no point is either gene off.
Various species clearly manipulate these genes to change sex during life, some don't even have X or Y chromosomes but still have Dmrt1 and FOXL2, and the existence of XY women who've given birth suggests that the so-called sexual chromosomes have nothing to do with it.
>not an amount of androgen
I said that males were bombarded with high estrogen levels early in the womb, so their their receptors for these hormones are filled and thus can't take estrogens later during development. I never even mentioned androgen.
Your citation is objectively out of date.
>>7652315
Why doesnt she have kneecaps?
>>7652315
>or set of proteins produced by it's opposite.
OPPOSITE TO WHAT?
>le ebin women are attractive maymay xD
>>7650545
>Why don't we know why sexual reproduction exists?
Its about fending off genetic entropy
DNA gets corrupted (cancer in multi cell organisms), this happens over time.
A way to avoid it is taking a single cell that is not genetically corrupted and using it to start over.
By having 2 parents the chances of DNA corruption in the gamete are reduced, bacuase the father needs to overcome obstacles, demonstrating health (at least in nature) to be able to reproduce.
>>7650545
>>7652501
>virgin gf
this is equals
>12 year old
>>7650545
We do know why sexual reproduction exists.
It allows beneficial mutations to be shared around in a population "gene pool", instead of all having to happen in the same asexual line, thus greatly speeding up evolution.
parasitic reproduction which members of the same or very similar species evolve to accommodate and survive. gives rise to hermaphroditic organisms who compete to be the male (penis jousting or similar). eventually they further specialize to have permanent sexes.
>>7652339
magic of pantyhose
>>7650545
Sexual reproduction exists because it promotes genetic diversity and a population of genetically diverse organisms tends to survive better than a population of clones.
A single disease might wipe out a population of clones, but in a genetically diverse population there's a higher change some can resist it.
As for how exactly did it evolve? Idk. Idk if anyone knows that.
>>7651169
>Yes. I had a female acquaintance in a hs computer science class.
That's all you had to say senpai, you didn't have to explicitly insult her.
>>7652563
Unfortunately, you're right. Still live by #NoHymenNoDiamond
![i[1].jpg&h=530&scale=crop&w=943&location=origin.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/6uAGkuD.jpg "i[1].jpg&h=530&scale=crop&w=943&location=origin.jpg")
> women are attractive
back to >>>/pol/ and take your obvious pro-heterosexual propaganda
>>7653080
> hurrr durrr women are pretty
See this is what /pol/ does. Admiring women is a cultural thing and every post like OPs is a step towards conditioning people to like typical women that are "sexy" and dressed up like objects for men to enjoy. People like caitlyn deserve more attention than what white males find attractive.
If you're too dumb to eat their blatant propaganda, fuck off back to >>>/pol/
>>7653097
i bet you had a nice chuckle to yourself after you wrote this
>>7650545
I cant engineer a solution.
>>7653097
> Admiring women is a cultural thing
0/10.
When you see a clustering of behaviors across all cultures, it can be pretty well assumed it's probably due to intrinsic traits that tends to play themselves out the same way regardless of what environment they exist in.
Oh look, average female hips. I wonder how many cultures that was hot.
>>7653139
I don't find sexism as funny as you do.
back your ass to /pol/
![pp_pharellwomenblurredlines[1].jpg_resize=350%2C350.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/H5w4ZLu.jpg "pp_pharellwomenblurredlines[1].jpg_resize=350%2C350.jpg")
>>7653171
> %99 of tv shows, movies, cultural oppression, porn telling people to like stereotypical "hot" women figure
> it's not a cultural thing
You are a dumb sexist alright. Fuck off back to /pol/
>>7653171
>calling Lena's hips average
off yourself bender
>>7653180
> %99 of tv shows, movies, cultural oppression, porn telling people to like stereotypical "hot" women figure
Dam son its almost as if the same thing doesn't happen to men
oh wait
>>7653337
Men aren't seen as trophies you bigot, women do.
>>7653180
Look back on the art of various cultures throughout history. Most of them depicted relatively consistent ratios and physical traits. No matter how different the whole was, whether it was the ancient Greeks, renaissance italy, or modern America with its cancerous media culture, certain general traits remained.
To claim appreciation of the female form is cultural is absolute nonsense. There has always been variation and a certain clustering, and it hasn't changed much.
>>7653202
It wasn't meant to be a bad thing.
>>7653348
>Men aren't seen as trophies
lol
![194964804_c594b17c06_z[1].jpg_zz=1.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/j420oW0.jpg "194964804_c594b17c06_z[1].jpg_zz=1.jpg")
>>7653351
>>7653351
> lol
nice argument you got there /pol/lack
>>7652433
Dmrt1 and FOXL2 both inhibit each other. That's what I mean by 'opposite.'
>>7653379
As it stands I don't really feel I need one. The actuality of the situation is almost self evidencing.
Phrases like "my man" exist in popular culture, why? Younger women especially tend to like to pit their boyfriends, or male friends, against certain challenges to prove they chose the right one. It elevates their sense of status and self worth, and does so further when they manage to hold onto them.
Women are also very prone to harem forming behavior. Even if their culture looks down on having multiple sexual partners, and therefore the female practices some degree of sexual exclusivity, she might tend to keep other males around and be defensive of them as if they were a partner. Is this behavior not territorial and trophy-like?
A lot of it is evidence of a sickly society full of broken people, but nonetheless, it's how humans often act. Not all women do this, older women tend to grow out of it, but nonetheless, the trophy mentality goes both ways. It's fairly standard and quite obvious.
>>7651264
faggot
>>7652563
One of my friends is still virgin, she's 19yo and a solid 8/10
>>7650545
>Why are women attractive? And don't say evolution.
Yeah, it's evolution, numbnuts.
Statistics indicate that, as a male, you're attracted to big tits and a big ass. Why? Because a big ass indicates big hips, meaning more offspring safely born. Big tits to feed them. It's wired into the male brain.
Conversely, women want a big, tall galoot who will probably treat her like shit. Why? Because a large male with abundant aggression will keep her babies safe. What's more, they like "selfless" useless acts like giving flowers (but only from a big ape...betas can piss right off with that corny shit) because it indicates the dopey selfless drive that will make a male sacrifice himself to a roaming lion and additionally, keep her babies safe.
Don't mystify something entirely straightforward.
>>7650620
lulz
>>7650545
>>7654439
>>7651270
>coalburner
>>7654442
>>7651264
>The male form (when developed) is more attractive though and far more visually aesthetic.
True, but no homo.
>>7653180
SJWs are beyond stupid.
See pic refers. Trobriand Islander girls considered attractive by the locals. A society seperated from ours by tens of thousands of years. And no TV.
>>7653343
>Its main "purpose" was to defeat viruses by jumbling around our genes.
It also greatly speeds up evolutionary adaption by allowing rapid sharing of beneficial genes. This is why genetic algorithms in computers also use pseudo mating.
Long lived species without sex cannot adapt and evolve and die out.
>>7653180
>stereotypical "hot" women
You mean stereotypical healthy fertile women?
Are you insinuating that the media tricks men into finding women who exhibit biological signs of fertility attractive?
Lmao I'm sorry that you might find that offensive but pointing out that something might be politically incorrect doesn't make it any less true.
>>7650630
do you need to take seat over there?
>>7650545
>what is 1+1?
>and don't say 2, because I am retarded.
This is literally you. Also: sage, because tripfags have no place on /sci/
>>7653180
The fact that what constitutes an attractive woman is universally accepted works against your argument just as well.
Are feminists the new theists? I feel like the premises of feminism are just as unprovable as the existence or nonexistence of God.
>>7654458
You just inadvertently proved the ubiquity of the patriarchy. How does it feel to unconsciously be a feminist? Resistance is futile.
>>7651173
Not the same guy, but what is the appropriate saying then, actually?
>>7650545
>Why are women attractive?
For purposes of reproduction. If you had zero interest in fucking the opposite sex then the chance of you passing on your genes to the next generation would be unlikely.
>>7650545
Question? At around the age of 12 years old OPs pic would have been the sexiest thing to me, now I'm repulsed by it and prefer less pronounced girls, traps, and futa hentai, among other things.
Why is that? Could it be I'm a giant shut who's grown to prefer the "omega" route of taking the unwanted mates?
>>7656060
*giant shut-in
>>7652563
Stop being dramatic, because that's only males who are virgins.
Source:4chan.
>>7650556
danskjävlar
>>7652501
Can confirm
Current gf was a virgin before we met. Best gf I've had.
>>7656060
it's because you're a virgin
>>7656435
But I was a virgin when I was 12. Explain what happened.
>>7656060
I wouldn't call them repulsive, but what happened to you is fairly normal. Your tastes became more defined as you better learned how to resolve more and more specific traits, and you notice more and more.
To me the image looks generic. But a 12 year old mind knows little else about the world, or itself, so it just sees "it's female and it's almost naked. It has boobs and hips and looks nice." Some things will look more nice than others, but to a mind at that point it's just a rough and general process of distinguishing signal from noise
>>7650545
>don't say evolution
... b-but it's because evolution.
OP. Easy answer:
You will NEVER see a very attractive single mother.
>>7650545
>Why are women attractive? And don't say evolution.
Sexual selection.
>Why don't we know why sexual reproduction exists?
But we do. Look up the Red Queen theory.
/basic evolutionary science
>>7650550
Mediocreman is best suited, Fitguy only in a few cases. Guess who's making it....
>>7657236
Why are you attacking my milf fantasies ? Couldn't just some hot women get her husband ded and become a hot single mom ?
>>7651270
>filename
Unless youre big, black and muscular you don't have a chance.
>>7653348
>men aren't seen as trophies
hahahahaha
>>7650551
how does that explain fetishes?
>>7651264
you = faggot^10^10
>>7657551
It doesn't, and isn't really meant to.
People's desires are multifaceted. There's a lot of associative factors, a lot of spillover, and a lot of... outright ambivalence. I wouldn't even dream of trying to type a post that encapsulates it all.
>>7650558
!!! good
agree its not really 'survival of the fittest' its very that not alot of people relize this.
>>7654505
its not like those contentions arent pretty well documented. just cause you dont like it dont mean its bogus.
>>7659796
well, of course that thing is a fact. but this is the way it is, you cannot change human nature, this is why communism doesn't work.
we are not bees or ants, we can't live in a perfect society where everyone acts altruistically. if course, this leads to "winners" and "losers" in society, but instead of whining about it, people should constantly try to improve their position. (and yes, this means others have to fall)
>>7650558
>Actually, it is in the title of the fourth chapter of Darwin’s book
Read The Fucking Book, retard
>>7655990
survival of those most suitable to their environment I think (not same guy)
You're asking the wrong question.
The correct question is "why are men ugly?"
The answer is because they're the labor pool. Only 50% of them will ever reproduce. They're a surplus product.
>>7655414
You haven't shown that the patriarchy is wrong :^)
>>7662051
>>7650545
tits or gtfo
>>7662021
>They're a surplus product
that's dark
>>7650545
Ormones
>>7651264
fag
>>7650545
evolution.
>>7650545
Well I'm gay so I wouldn't know, but at least I'm not a worthless, bottom-feeding tripfag.
>>7650630
Mating with a child who isn't "of prime mating age" relieves the mother of her duty to care for it, allowing her more time to get pregnant again and produce more offspring.
Still not a glamorous state of affairs to be dealing with.
>>7662021
Since the introduction of monogamy as a social dogma rates of reproduction have jumped to 87% for women and 81% for men.
But yes, for the vast majority of hominid history ~80% of women reproduced while ~40% of men reproduced.
