Quote Originally Posted by fellintobed View Post
It might be fairer to state:

In our society, curves and roundness on women are considered generally attractive.
In our society, angularity and edges on men are considered generally attractive.

I know you were oversimplifying, but as long as we're going to oversimplify, might as well use inclusive language.

But I'm saying it's not societal. I'm suggesting that we are genetically predisposed to respond to certain visual cues.

Society changes the degree of the cue... or perhaps better to say it alters enhances the response when the cue meets certain societal beliefs.

White, (meaning untanned,) skin and plump if you're in 19th Century British Victorian England (because that signifies wealth and prosperity, and just the opposite in the latter half of the 20th Century in the USA... for much the same reasoning.

But the basic cues, the shapes, strike me as instinct. And given the nature of how we develop in the womb, and the complexity of our brains, and the fact that diversity creates greater opportunity for the species to prosper, the whole question of gender orientation is a natural one.

It's really only the modern churches, which, imo, believe procreation extends their power, that have created this onus against "non-traditional" gendering.

Go BC and it was quite acceptable...