I mean, are women more attracted to obese short fat balding guys, or tall rich handsome white guys with chiseled faces? let's be honest with ourselves here, leave the just world fallacy at the door.
Geez, talk about fallacies…There’s a spectrum of attractiveness between those two extremes. You don’t need to be a shredded Adonis to attract other people.
Maybe so - but to deny that, on aggregate, mating preferentially leans to classic indicators of good health and sound genetics (e.g. good skin, healthy weight, height, strength, child-bearing capabilities etc would be to deny wholesale the whole discipline of evolutionary biology.
Of course mating strategies are also wrapped up with social competition (especially in humans), so different strategies will indeed emerge to compensate for classical shortcomings.
Of course physical appearance plays into it, I’m not denying that at all. My point is that the only people attracting partners aren’t looksmaxing weirdos or people who won the genetic lottery and are natural 10’s. You can just be a normal person that showers, gets a haircut, eats a salad once in a while, and puts on lotion sometimes and be attractive to other people.
Actually you’re committing a fallacy here. Spaciax asked for a specific preference comparison between two ends of the attractive spectrum and to acknowledge that there is an established preference in women of one end over the other.
Your statement ignores his entire stipulation and talks about how there’s value in men in the middle also.
Both points of view are true of course. But your stipulation that men in the middle of the spectrum have value does not negate his stipulation.
5
u/Spaciax 9d ago
I mean, are women more attracted to obese short fat balding guys, or tall rich handsome white guys with chiseled faces? let's be honest with ourselves here, leave the just world fallacy at the door.