Quote Originally Posted by Ozme52 View Post
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...
I think there's something to this line of thinking. It's been shown from an evolutionary point of view there are definitely visual cues, that are part of our hardwiring, that are used to determine the fitness of potential mates.

By fitness, I'm not talking about pilates, I'm talking about fitness in the Darwinian sense.

I don't know about shapes necessarily, but body development in females including a certain amount of fat reserves in the thighs, hips and breasts are visual clues that do give off signals about prime reproductive age. These things are tracked by males in studies. Often it's subconcious or just people choosing their "type" - the underlying pattern is there, however.

That doesn't mean there isn't going to be some variation among individuals, though. But it is a general pattern.