Natasha Tori Maru

@Jirh looksmaxxers working out if someone is attractive to them or not. Do you think they carry scale rulers and protractors? 🤣🤣🤣 Fuck it's too easy to rip on looksmaxxing. I need a challenge lol

Honestly, if you advocate for looksmaxxing like it's genuinely going to be a "thing" you are suffering from a cognitive distortion. It's your algorithm. It's marketing "look at this thing that is wrong, I have the solution". Supply and demand. Touch grass. This shit isn't a thing. Cognitive. Distortion.

Like a limp, wet noodle. Soggy 3 day old ramen 🍜

I'm gatekeeping my opinion and review you fucks! 😎😄

Haha, tell that to the looksmaxxers with their pseudo adoption of mathematical principals applied to faces 😜 I think this is a silly example. Domain error in species. Can't just use category errors like that and try to argue from there.

@Leo Gura hell yeah 😁

Health indicators over appearance might be a better frame.

Interesting line of thought. I think this pushes to "how objective are biological mechanisms?" Which is interesting. I can think of "pain" being a good example to steelman this. Pain, you could argue, is a pretty strong objective indicator that triggers a biological response of "not good, get away, warning, stop". Our experience of pain is objective on this way, removing the range of perceptive tolerance, it still indicates danger or something wrong. Pushing this into men's response to the appearance of women: waist to hip ratio, breasts, arse. Clear skin. Shiny hair. Bright eyes. All can induce similar "objective" (you could argue) responses in men. Many times, outside their control. Women experience something similar, but the example is better suited to men due to the strength of their sexual drivers and biological responses.

Hit up some of Robert Greene's books! Even if they don't make it to the booklist, I think you would enjoy them, Leo He is releasing a new book soon that I gather has some overlap with spirituality & truth.

The way I try to see it is biology providing a range of potential "attraction mechanisms" while culture adds in its hierarchy of what is important, desirable and meaningful. Then you have individual preferences further moving the needle to modify the above. Neither sex has a purely objective attraction system. The question skews more toward how much of attraction is biological vs socially constructed? Not whether one sex is objective while the other relative. The premise is too reductive.

@Leo Gura gotcha, and yeah this is why I asked because context can change meaning. Not sure why you are commenting on pretending things don't exist.

You can say that it is obvious - but your initial statement wasn't clear. I would say it also relies on women being able to bear children as well as raise them. I don't care if what you say is new or not. Cheers for clarifying 🙏🏻 So, they rely on each other for survival. And each have their own part to play as providers. One cannot be "more of a provider" than the other without making effort quantifying this for each sex.

How are you quantifying "needed for survival" here? I think it's a false comparison. You can't really decouple men and women in terms of needs like this. I don't think survival can be measured independently like that for each sex. I don't think this holds for all contexts.

🎯

You are certainly living up to your name! Great wonder seeking - can't wait until you pop in with some insights after this trajectory change 😁