View Single Post
(#8)
Old
PostScript's Avatar
PostScript PostScript is offline
MASTER PUA
 
Default 12-04-2011, 12:23 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by RLAJay View Post
There's two sides to this argument.

Firstly there's the factual side, men are more attracted to women with a 1.6-1.7 waist to hip ratio. This indicates she has good health for bearing a child. Similar perfect ratios are also present in men. This ratio is attractive no matter that height or size of a woman.

Smell, we're more attracted to those that are genetically opposite to us and this is indicate by the individual smells we all carry. If you've ever thought someone was traditionally good looking but you were completely unattracted to them then this is likely the cause.

We're more attracted to those with a symmetry. This indicates good genetics. When your cells split they all create perfect copies of themselves but various things cause mutations and imperfections. If every cell in your body perfectly split then you would have a perfect mirror image on both sides of you.

Faces, estrogen caps bone growth in a woman's lower face and chin making them lower and shorter as well as the brow allowing for more prominent eyes. Testosterone does quite the opposite creating a wider lower face and jaw and much more prominent brow. The appearance of these traits indicates strong hormonal health and ability to reproduce.

Another studied area (although controversial) is pheromones, certain pheromones can attract women of a certain gene group while even angering men of a certain gene group. This is disputed though as pheromones don't sit in the air much - they hover around 10 inches off the ground. It is possible to pick these up as someone goes past though before they fall.

Then, on top of the above well studied areas you have the competing issues from social conditioning, prevalent thoughts that are drummed into people and cause clashes with our factual biological attractions because we're told to be attracted to x and we seek to have x because it will make others around us think we're awesome etc.

In terms of food taste, it's not subjective at all. Taste has a factual spectrum made up of bitter, sweet, salty, sour and umami. These 5 things combine to create all tastes. The subjectivity of taste comes from two things, those with high concentrations of tastebuds have been found to have a wider degree of foods that they like, on top of this the body also adjusts perceptions of tastes based on what it craves, receptors for different types of tastes increase and decrease based on what the body desires.
Don't you think the implications of this are a bit, depressing? It's like that thread the other day implying that we are but effects of previous causes. Not to get all existential/spiritual but the logical conclusion of this line of thought, is that our identities don't exist. If I see myself as this and that, but this and that are merely inherent biological drives or environmental adaptations, then what room does that leave for "me", what am "I"?

PS


"Civilise the mind, make savage the body"
Reply With Quote